Sample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry [1st ed.] 0471328456, 9780471328452

Citation preview

Sample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry

Edited by

SOMENATH MITRA Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science New Jersey Institute of Technology

A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION

Sample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS A SERIES OF MONOGRAPHS ON ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY AND ITS APPLICATIONS

Editor

J. D. WINEFORDNER

VOLUME 162

A complete list of the titles in this series appears at the end of this volume.

Sample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry

Edited by

SOMENATH MITRA Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science New Jersey Institute of Technology

A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION

Copyright 6 2003 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, e-mail: [email protected]. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best e¤orts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 877-762-2974, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3993 or fax 317-572-4002. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print, however, may not be available in electronic format. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: Sample preparation techniques in analytical chemistry / edited by Somenath Mitra. p. cm. — (Chemical analysis ; v. 162) Includes index. ISBN 0-471-32845-6 (cloth : acid-free paper) 1. Sampling. 2. Chemistry, Analytic—Methodology. I. Mitra, S. (Somenath), 1959– II. Series. QD75.4.S24S26 2003 543—dc21 2003001379 Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

To the hands in the laboratory and the heads seeking information

CONTENTS

CONTRIBUTORS

xvii

PREFACE

xix

CHAPTER 1

SAMPLE PREPARATION: AN ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE

1

Somenath Mitra and Roman Brukh

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

The Measurement Process 1.1.1. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis 1.1.2. Methods of Quantitation Errors in Quantitative Analysis: Accuracy and Precision 1.2.1. Accuracy 1.2.2. Precision 1.2.3. Statistical Aspects of Sample Preparation Method Performance and Method Validation 1.3.1. Sensitivity 1.3.2. Detection Limit 1.3.3. Range of Quantitation 1.3.4. Other Important Parameters 1.3.5. Method Validation Preservation of Samples 1.4.1. Volatilization 1.4.2. Choice of Proper Containers 1.4.3. Absorption of Gases from the Atmosphere 1.4.4. Chemical Changes 1.4.5. Preservation of Unstable Solids vii

1 3 4 6 6 6 10 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 19 19 20 20 20

viii

contents 1.5.

1.6.

Postextraction Procedures 1.5.1. Concentration of Sample Extracts 1.5.2. Sample Cleanup Quality Assurance and Quality Control during Sample Preparation 1.6.1. Determination of Accuracy and Precision 1.6.2. Statistical Control 1.6.3. Matrix Control 1.6.4. Contamination Control References

SECTION A

EXTRACTION AND ENRICHMENT IN SAMPLE PREPARATION

CHAPTER 2

PRINCIPLES OF EXTRACTION AND THE EXTRACTION OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS FROM LIQUIDS

21 21 22 25 28 29 31 32 35

37

Martha J. M. Wells

2.1.

2.2.

2.3. 2.4.

Principles of Extraction 2.1.1. Volatilization 2.1.2. Hydrophobicity 2.1.3. Acid–Base Equilibria 2.1.4. Distribution of Hydrophobic Ionogenic Organic Compounds Liquid–Liquid Extraction 2.2.1. Recovery 2.2.2. Methodology 2.2.3. Procedures 2.2.4. Recent Advances in Techniques Liquid–Solid Extraction 2.3.1. Sorption Solid-Phase Extraction 2.4.1. Sorbents in SPE 2.4.2. Sorbent Selection 2.4.3. Recovery 2.4.4. Methodology

37 38 43 50 57 57 60 66 68 72 74 75 78 81 96 99 108

x

contents 3.5.1. 3.5.2. 3.5.3. 3.5.4. 3.5.5. 3.6.

3.7.

CHAPTER 4

Theoretical Considerations Instrumentation Operational Procedures Process Parameters Advantages and Applications of ASE Microwave-Assisted Extraction 3.6.1. Theoretical Considerations 3.6.2. Instrumentation 3.6.3. Procedures and Advantages/ Disadvantages 3.6.4. Process Parameters 3.6.5. Applications of MAE Comparison of the Various Extraction Techniques References

EXTRACTION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM SOLIDS AND LIQUIDS

155 156 158 159 161 163 163 164 170 170 173 173 178

183

Gregory C. Slack, Nicholas H. Snow, and Dawen Kou

4.1. 4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

Volatile Organics and Their Analysis Static Headspace Extraction 4.2.1. Sample Preparation for Static Headspace Extraction 4.2.2. Optimizing Static Headspace Extraction E‰ciency and Quantitation 4.2.3. Quantitative Techniques in Static Headspace Extraction Dynamic Headspace Extraction or Purge and Trap 4.3.1. Instrumentation 4.3.2. Operational Procedures in Purge and Trap 4.3.3. Interfacing Purge and Trap with GC Solid-Phase Microextraction

183 184 186

187 190 194 194 199 199 200

contents 4.4.1.

4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

CHAPTER 5

SPME Method Development for Volatile Organics 4.4.2. Choosing an SPME Fiber Coating 4.4.3. Optimizing Extraction Conditions 4.4.4. Optimizing SPME–GC Injection Liquid–Liquid Extraction with LargeVolume Injection 4.5.1. Large-Volume GC Injection Techniques 4.5.2. Liquid–Liquid Extraction for Large-Volume Injection Membrane Extraction 4.6.1. Membranes and Membrane Modules 4.6.2. Membrane Introduction Mass Spectrometry 4.6.3. Membrane Extraction with Gas Chromatography 4.6.4. Optimization of Membrane Extraction Conclusions References

xi

PREPARATION OF SAMPLES FOR METALS ANALYSIS

201 204 206 207 208 208 211 212 215 217 218 222 223 223

227

Barbara B. Kebbekus

5.1. 5.2.

5.3.

Introduction Wet Digestion Methods 5.2.1. Acid Digestion—Wet Ashing 5.2.2. Microwave Digestion 5.2.3. Comparison of Digestion Methods 5.2.4. Pressure Ashing 5.2.5. Wet Ashing for Soil Samples Dry Ashing 5.3.1. Organic Extraction of Metals 5.3.2. Extraction with Supercritical Fluids 5.3.3. Ultrasonic Sample Preparation

227 230 231 234 235 237 237 240 241 244 245

xii

contents 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7.

Solid-Phase Extraction for Preconcentration Sample Preparation for Water Samples Precipitation Methods Preparation of Sample Slurries for Direct AAS Analysis 5.8. Hydride Generation Methods 5.9. Colorimetric Methods 5.10. Metal Speciation 5.10.1. Types of Speciation 5.10.2. Speciation for Soils and Sediments 5.10.3. Sequential Schemes for Metals in Soil or Sediment 5.10.4. Speciation for Metals in Plant Materials 5.10.5. Speciation of Specific Elements 5.11. Contamination during Metal Analysis 5.12. Safe Handling of Acids References SECTION B

SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR NUCLEIC ACID ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 6

SAMPLE PREPARATION IN DNA ANALYSIS

245 248 251 251 252 254 255 257 258 259 260 262 263 264 264

271

Satish Parimoo and Bhama Parimoo

6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

6.4.

DNA and Its Structure 6.1.1. Physical and Chemical Properties of DNA 6.1.2. Isolation of DNA Isolation of DNA from Bacteria 6.2.1. Phenol Extraction and Precipitation of DNA 6.2.2. Removal of Contaminants from DNA Isolation of Plasmid DNA 6.3.1. Plasmid DNA Preparation 6.3.2. Purification of Plasmid DNA Genomic DNA Isolation from Yeast

271 274 276 278 278 282 283 284 285 287

contents 6.5.

6.6. 6.7. 6.8.

6.9.

CHAPTER 7

DNA from Mammalian Tissues 6.5.1. Blood 6.5.2. Tissues and Tissue Culture Cells DNA from Plant Tissue Isolation of Very High Molecular Weight DNA DNA Amplification by Polymerase Chain Reaction 6.8.1. Starting a PCR Reaction 6.8.2. Isolation of DNA from Small RealWorld Samples for PCR Assessment of Quality and Quantitation of DNA 6.9.1. Precautions for Preparing DNA 6.9.2. Assessment of Concentration and Quality 6.9.3. Storage of DNA References

SAMPLE PREPARATION IN RNA ANALYSIS

xiii 288 288 289 290 290 291 291 294 296 296 296 299 299

301

Bhama Parimoo and Satish Parimoo

7.1.

7.2.

7.3.

7.4.

7.5.

RNA: Structure and Properties 7.1.1. Types and Location of Various RNAs RNA Isolation: Basic Considerations 7.2.1. Methods of Extraction and Isolation of RNA Phenol Extraction and RNA Recovery: Basic Principles 7.3.1. Examples of RNA Isolation Using Phenol Extraction Guanidinium Salt Method 7.4.1. Examples of RNA Isolation Using Guanidinium Salts Isolation of RNA from Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Cellular Fractions

301 303 306 307 309 310 313 313 317

xiv

contents 7.6.

CHAPTER 8

Removal of DNA Contamination from RNA 7.7. Fractionation of RNA Using Chromatography Methods 7.7.1. Fractionation of Small RNA by HPLC 7.7.2. mRNA Isolation by A‰nity Chromatography 7.8. Isolation of RNA from Small Numbers of Cells 7.9. In Vitro Synthesis of RNA 7.10. Assessment of Quality and Quantitation of RNA 7.11. Storage of RNA References

326 328 329

TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXTRACTION, ISOLATION, AND PURIFICATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS

331

317 318 318 319 323 324

Mahesh Karwa and Somenath Mitra

8.1. 8.2.

8.3.

8.4.

8.5. 8.6.

Introduction Methods of Cell Lysis 8.2.1. Mechanical Methods of Cell Lysis 8.2.2. Nonmechanical Methods of Cell Lysis Isolation of Nucleic Acids 8.3.1. Solvent Extraction and Precipitation 8.3.2. Membrane Filtration Chromatographic Methods for the Purification of Nucleic Acids 8.4.1. Size-Exclusion Chromatography 8.4.2. Anion-Exchange Chromatography 8.4.3. Solid-Phase Extraction 8.4.4. A‰nity Purification Automated High-Throughput DNA Purification Systems Electrophoretic Separation of Nucleic Acids

331 333 335 339 342 344 345 346 347 348 351 352 355 360

contents 8.6.1.

8.7. 8.8.

Gel Electrophoresis for Nucleic Acids Purification 8.6.2. Techniques for the Isolation of DNA from Gels Capillary Electrophoresis for Sequencing and Sizing Microfabricated Devices for Nucleic Acids Analysis 8.8.1. Sample Preparation on Microchips References

xv

SECTION C

SAMPLE PREPARATION IN MICROSCOPY AND SPECTROSCOPY

CHAPTER 9

SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR MICROSCOPIC AND SPECTROSCOPIC CHARACTERIZATION OF SOLID SURFACES AND FILMS

360 362 364 366 370 373

377

Sharmila M. Mukhopadhyay

9.1.

9.2.

9.3.

9.4.

Introduction 9.1.1. Microscopy of Solids 9.1.2. Spectroscopic Techniques for Solids Sample Preparation for Microscopic Evaluation 9.2.1. Sectioning and Polishing 9.2.2. Chemical and Thermal Etching 9.2.3. Sample Coating Techniques Specimen Thinning for TEM Analysis 9.3.1. Ion Milling 9.3.2. Reactive Ion Techniques 9.3.3. Chemical Polishing and Electropolishing 9.3.4. Tripod Polishing 9.3.5. Ultramicrotomy 9.3.6. Special Techniques and Variations Summary: Sample Preparation for Microscopy

377 378 381 382 382 385 387 389 391 393 394 396 398 399 400

xvi

contents 9.5.

9.6.

CHAPTER 10

Sample Preparation for Surface Spectroscopy 9.5.1. Ion Bombardment 9.5.2. Sample Heating 9.5.3. In Situ Abrasion and Scraping 9.5.4. In Situ Cleavage or Fracture Stage 9.5.5. Sample Preparation/Treatment Options for In Situ Reaction Studies Summary: Sample Preparation for Surface Spectroscopy References

SURFACE ENHANCEMENT BY SAMPLE AND SUBSTRATE PREPARATION TECHNIQUES IN RAMAN AND INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY

402 407 408 408 408

409 409 410

413

Zafar Iqbal

10.1. Introduction 10.1.1. Raman E¤ect 10.1.2. Fundamentals of Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy 10.1.3. Attenuated Total Reflection Infrared Spectroscopy 10.1.4. Fundamentals of Surface-Enhanced Infrared Spectroscopy 10.2. Sample Preparation for SERS 10.2.1. Electrochemical Techniques 10.2.2. Vapor Deposition and Chemical Preparation Techniques 10.2.3. Colloidal Sol Techniques 10.2.4. Nanoparticle Arrays and Gratings 10.3. Sample Preparation for SEIRA 10.4. Potential Applications References INDEX

413 413 415 420 421 423 423 424 425 427 431 433 436 439

CONTRIBUTORS

Roman Brukh, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102 Zafar Iqbal, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey 07102 Mahesh Karwa, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102 Barbara B. Kebbekus, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102 Dawen Kou, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102 Somenath Mitra, Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102 Sharmila M. Mukhopadhyay, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 Bhama Parimoo, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Rutgers University College of Pharmacy, Piscataway, NJ 08854 Satish Parimoo, Aderans Research Institute, Inc., 3701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 Gregory C. Slack, Department of Chemistry, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13676 Nicholas H. Snow, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079 Martha J. M. Wells, Center for the Management, Utilization and Protection of Water Resources and Department of Chemistry, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 38505

xvii

contents 2.4.5. Procedures 2.4.6. Recent Advances in SPE Solid-Phase Microextraction 2.5.1. Sorbents 2.5.2. Sorbent Selection 2.5.3. Methodology 2.5.4. Recent Advances in Techniques Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction 2.6.1. Sorbent and Analyte Recovery 2.6.2. Methodology 2.6.3. Recent Advances in Techniques Method Comparison References

111 113 113 116 118 119 124 125 125 127 129 130 131

EXTRACTION OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM SOLID MATRICES

139

2.5.

2.6.

2.7.

CHAPTER 3

ix

Dawen Kou and Somenath Mitra

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

Introduction 3.1.1. Extraction Mechanism 3.1.2. Preextraction Procedures 3.1.3. Postextraction Procedures Soxhlet and Automated Soxhlet 3.2.1. Soxhlet Extraction 3.2.2. Automated Soxhlet Extraction 3.2.3. Comparison between Soxtec and Soxhlet Ultrasonic Extraction 3.3.1. Selected Applications and Comparison with Soxhlet Supercritical Fluid Extraction 3.4.1. Theoretical Considerations 3.4.2. Instrumentation 3.4.3. Operational Procedures 3.4.4. Advantages/Disadvantages and Applications of SFE Accelerated Solvent Extraction

139 140 141 141 142 142 143 145 145 147 148 148 152 153 154 155

PREFACE

There has been unprecedented growth in measurement techniques over the last few decades. Instrumentation, such as chromatography, spectroscopy and microscopy, as well as sensors and microdevices, have undergone phenomenal developments. Despite the sophisticated arsenal of analytical tools, complete noninvasive measurements are still not possible in most cases. More often than not, one or more pretreatment steps are necessary. These are referred to as sample preparation, whose goal is enrichment, cleanup, and signal enhancement. Sample preparation is often the bottleneck in a measurement process, as they tend to be slow and labor-intensive. Despite this reality, it did not receive much attention until quite recently. However, the last two decades have seen rapid evolution and an explosive growth of this industry. This was particularly driven by the needs of the environmental and the pharmaceutical industries, which analyze large number of samples requiring significant e¤orts in sample preparation. Sample preparation is important in all aspects of chemical, biological, materials, and surface analysis. Notable among recent developments are faster, greener extraction methods and microextraction techniques. Specialized sample preparations, such as self-assembly of analytes on nanoparticles for surface enhancement, have also evolved. Developments in highthroughput workstations for faster preparation–analysis of a large number of samples are impressive. These use 96-well plates (moving toward 384 wells) and robotics to process hundreds of samples per day, and have revolutionized research in the pharmaceutical industry. Advanced microfabrication techniques have resulted in the development of miniaturized chemical analysis systems that include microscale sample preparation on a chip. Considering all these, sample preparation has evolved to be a separate discipline within the analytical/measurement sciences. The objective of this book is to provide an overview of a variety of sample preparation techniques and to bring the diverse methods under a common banner. Knowing fully well that it is impossible to cover all aspects in a single text, this book attempts to cover some of the more important and widely used techniques. The first chapter outlines the fundamental issues relating to sample preparation and the associated quality control. The xix

xx

preface

remainder of the book is divided into three sections. In the first we describe various extraction and enrichment approaches. Fundamentals of extraction, along with specific details on the preparation of organic and metal analytes, are presented. Classical methods such as Soxhlett and liquid–liquid extraction are described, along with recent developments in widely accepted methods such as SPE, SPME, stir-bar microextraction, microwave extraction, supercritical extraction, accelerated solvent extraction, purge and trap, headspace, and membrane extraction. The second section is dedicated to the preparation for nucleic acid analysis. Specific examples of DNA and RNA analyses are presented, along with the description of techniques used in these procedures. Sections on highthroughput workstations and microfabricated devices are included. The third section deals with sample preparation techniques used in microscopy, spectroscopy, and surface-enhanced Raman. The book is intended to be a reference book for scientists who use sample preparation in the chemical, biological, pharmaceutical, environmental, and material sciences. The other objective is to serve as a text for advanced undergraduate and graduate students. I am grateful to the New Jersey Institute of Technology for granting me a sabbatical leave to compile this book. My sincere thanks to my graduate students Dawen Kou, Roman Brukh, and Mahesh Karwa, who got going when the going got tough; each contributed to one or more chapters. New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ

Somenath Mitra

CHAPTER 1

SAMPLE PREPARATION: AN ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE SOMENATH MITRA AND ROMAN BRUKH Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey

1.1. THE MEASUREMENT PROCESS

The purpose of an analytical study is to obtain information about some object or substance. The substance could be a solid, a liquid, a gas, or a biological material. The information to be obtained can be varied. It could be the chemical or physical composition, structural or surface properties, or a sequence of proteins in genetic material. Despite the sophisticated arsenal of analytical techniques available, it is not possible to find every bit of information of even a very small number of samples. For the most part, the state of current instrumentation has not evolved to the point where we can take an instrument to an object and get all the necessary information. Although there is much interest in such noninvasive devices, most analysis is still done by taking a part (or portion) of the object under study (referred to as the sample) and analyzing it in the laboratory (or at the site). Some common steps involved in the process are shown in Figure 1.1. The first step is sampling, where the sample is obtained from the object to be analyzed. This is collected such that it represents the original object. Sampling is done with variability within the object in mind. For example, while collecting samples for determination of Ca 2þ in a lake, it should be kept in mind that its concentrations can vary depending on the location, the depth, and the time of year. The next step is sample preservation. This is an important step, because there is usually a delay between sample collection and analysis. Sample preservation ensures that the sample retains its physical and chemical characteristics so that the analysis truly represents the object under study. Once Sample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry, Edited by Somenath Mitra ISBN 0-471-32845-6 Copyright 6 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1

2

sample preparation: an analytical perspective Sampling

Sample preservation

Sample preparation

Analysis Figure 1.1. Steps in a measurement process.

the sample is ready for analysis, sample preparation is the next step. Most samples are not ready for direct introduction into instruments. For example, in the analysis of pesticides in fish liver, it is not possible to analyze the liver directly. The pesticides have to be extracted into a solution, which can be analyzed by an instrument. There might be several processes within sample preparation itself. Some steps commonly encountered are shown in Figure 1.2. However, they depend on the sample, the matrix, and the concentration level at which the analysis needs to be carried out. For instance, trace analysis requires more stringent sample preparation than major component analysis. Once the sample preparation is complete, the analysis is carried out by an instrument of choice. A variety of instruments are used for di¤erent types of analysis, depending on the information to be acquired: for example, chromatography for organic analysis, atomic spectroscopy for metal analysis, capillary electrophoresis for DNA sequencing, and electron microscopy for small structures. Common analytical instrumentation and the sample preparation associated with them are listed in Table 1.1. The sample preparation depends on the analytical techniques to be employed and their capabilities. For instance, only a few microliters can be injected into a gas chromatograph. So in the example of the analysis of pesticides in fish liver, the ultimate product is a solution of a few microliters that can be injected into a gas chromatograph. Sampling, sample preservation, and sample preparation are

the measurement process

3

Homogenization, Size reduction

Extraction

Concentration

Clean-up

Analysis

Figure 1.2. Possible steps within sample preparation.

all aimed at producing those few microliters that represent what is in the fish. It is obvious that an error in the first three steps cannot be rectified by even the most sophisticated analytical instrument. So the importance of the prior steps, in particular the sample preparation, cannot be understressed. 1.1.1. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis There is seldom a unique way to design a measurement process. Even an explicitly defined analysis can be approached in more than one ways. Different studies have di¤erent purposes, di¤erent financial constraints, and are carried out by sta¤ with di¤erent expertise and personal preferences. The most important step in a study design is the determination of the purpose, and at least a notion of the final results. It should yield data that provide useful information to solve the problem at hand. The objective of an analytical measurement can be qualitative or quantitative. For example, the presence of pesticide in fish is a topic of concern. The questions may be: Are there pesticides in fish? If so, which ones? An analysis designed to address these questions is a qualitative analysis, where the analyst screens for the presence of certain pesticides. The next obvious question is: How much pesticide is there? This type of analysis, quantitative analysis, not only addresses the presence of the pesticide, but also its concentration. The other important category is semiqualitative analysis. Here

4

sample preparation: an analytical perspective Table 1.1. Common Instrumental Methods and the Necessary Sample Preparation Steps Prior to Analysis

Analytes

Sample Preparation

Instrumenta

Organics

Extraction, concentration, cleanup, derivatization Transfer to vapor phase, concentration Extraction, concentration, speciation Extraction, derivatization, concentration, speciation Extraction, concentration, derivatization Cell lysis, extraction, PCR

GC, HPLC, GC/MS, LC/MS

Volatile organics Metals Metals

Ions DNA/RNA Amino acids, fats carbohydrates Microstructures

Extraction, cleanup Etching, polishing, reactive ion techniques, ion bombardments, etc.

GC, GC-MS AA, GFAA, ICP, ICP/MS UV-VIS molecular absorption spectrophotometry, ion chromatography IC, UV-VIS Electrophoresis, UV-VIS, florescence GC, HPLC, electrophoresis Microscopy, surface spectroscopy

a GC, gas chromatography; HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography; MS, mass spectroscopy; AA, atomic absorption; GFAA, graphite furnace atomic absorption; ICP, inductively coupled plasma; UV-VIS, ultraviolet–visible molecular absorption spectroscopy; IC, ion chromatography.

the concern is not exactly how much is there but whether it is above or below a certain threshold level. The prostate specific antigen (PSA) test for the screening of prostate cancer is one such example. A PSA value of 4 ng/L (or higher) implies a higher risk of prostate cancer. The goal here is to determine if the PSA is higher or lower then 4 ng/L. Once the goal of the analyses and target analytes have been identified, the methods available for doing the analysis have to be reviewed with an eye to accuracy, precision, cost, and other relevant constraints. The amount of labor, time required to perform the analysis, and degree of automation can also be important. 1.1.2. Methods of Quantitation Almost all measurement processes, including sample preparation and analysis, require calibration against chemical standards. The relationship between a detector signal and the amount of analyte is obtained by recording

5

the measurement process

the response from known quantities. Similarly, if an extraction step is involved, it is important to add a known amount of analyte to the matrix and measure its recovery. Such processes require standards, which may be prepared in the laboratory or obtained from a commercial source. An important consideration in the choice of standards is the matrix. For some analytical instruments, such as x-ray fluorescence, the matrix is very important, but it may not be as critical for others. Sample preparation is usually matrix dependent. It may be easy to extract a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon from sand by supercritical extraction but not so from an aged soil with a high organic content. Calibration Curves The most common calibration method is to prepare standards of known concentrations, covering the concentration range expected in the sample. The matrix of the standard should be as close to the samples as possible. For instance, if the sample is to be extracted into a certain organic solvent, the standards should be prepared in the same solvent. The calibration curve is a plot of detector response as a function of concentration. A typical calibration curve is shown in Figure 1.3. It is used to determine the amount of analyte in the unknown samples. The calibration can be done in two ways, best illustrated by an example. Let us say that the amount of lead in soil is being measured. The analytical method includes sample preparation by acid extraction followed by analysis using atomic absorption (AA). The stan-

3 2.5

Signal

2 1.5 LOD (3 × S/N)

1 0.5

Limit of linearity

LOQ (10 × S/N)

0 0

0.5

1

1.5

2 2.5 3 Analyte concentration

Figure 1.3. Typical calibration curve.

3.5

4

4.5

6

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

dards can be made by spiking clean soil with known quantities of lead. Then the standards are taken through the entire process of extraction and analysis. Finally, the instrument response is plotted as a function of concentration. The other option assumes quantitative extraction, and the standards are used to calibrate only the AA. The first approach is more accurate; the latter is simpler. A calibration method that takes the matrix e¤ects into account is the method of standard addition, which is discussed briefly in Chapter 4.

1.2. ERRORS IN QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: ACCURACY AND PRECISION

All measurements are accompanied by a certain amount of error, and an estimate of its magnitude is necessary to validate results. The error cannot be eliminated completely, although its magnitude and nature can be characterized. It can also be reduced with improved techniques. In general, errors can be classified as random and systematic. If the same experiment is repeated several times, the individual measurements cluster around the mean value. The di¤erences are due to unknown factors that are stochastic in nature and are termed random errors. They have a Gaussian distribution and equal probability of being above or below the mean. On the other hand, systematic errors tend to bias the measurements in one direction. Systematic error is measured as the deviation from the true value. 1.2.1. Accuracy Accuracy, the deviation from the true value, is a measure of systematic error. It is often estimated as the deviation of the mean from the true value: accuracy ¼

mean true value true value

The true value may not be known. For the purpose of comparison, measurement by an established method or by an accredited institution is accepted as the true value. 1.2.2. Precision Precision is a measure of reproducibility and is a¤ected by random error. Since all measurements contain random error, the result from a single measurement cannot be accepted as the true value. An estimate of this error is necessary to predict within what range the true value may lie, and this is done

errors in quantitative analysis: accuracy and precision

7

by repeating a measurement several times [1]. Two important parameters, the average value and the variability of the measurement, are obtained from this process. The most widely used measure of average value is the arithmetic mean, x: P xi x¼ n P where xi is the sum of the replicate measurements and n is the total number of measurements. Since random errors are normally distributed, the common measure of variability (or precision) is the standard deviation, s. This is calculated as sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P ðxi xÞ 2 ð1:1Þ s¼ n When the data set is limited, the mean is often approximated as the true value, and the standard deviation may be underestimated. In that case, the unbiased estimate of s, which is designated s, is computed as follows: sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P ðxi xÞ 2 ð1:2Þ s¼ n 1 As the number of data points becomes larger, the value of s approaches that of s. When n becomes as large as 20, the equation for s may be used. Another term commonly used to measure variability is the coe‰cient of variation (CV) or relative standard deviation (RSD), which may also be expressed as a percentage: RSD ¼

s x

or

% RSD ¼

s  100 x

ð1:3Þ

Relative standard deviation is the parameter of choice for expressing precision in analytical sciences. Precision is particularly important when sample preparation is involved. The variability can also a¤ect accuracy. It is well known that reproducibility of an analysis decreases disproportionately with decreasing concentration [2]. A typical relationship is shown in Figure 1.4, which shows that the uncertainty in trace analysis increases exponentially compared to the major and minor component analysis. Additional deviations to this curve are expected if sample preparation steps are added to the process. It may be prudent to assume that uncertainty from sample preparation would also increase with decrease in concentration. Generally speaking, analytical

8

sample preparation: an analytical perspective 70 60

Aflatoxins

50

Relative standard deviation

40 30 20

Pesticide Drugs residues Pharmaceuticals in feeds

10 0 −10 −20

Major components

−30 −40

Minor components Trace Analysis

−50 −60 −70 1.E +00 1.E−02

1.E−04 1.E−06 1.E−08 Concentration

1.E−10

1.E−12

Figure 1.4. Reproducibility as a function of concentration during analytical measurements. (Reproduced from Ref. 3 with permission from LC-GC North America.)

instruments have become quite sophisticated and provide high levels of accuracy and precision. On the other hand, sample preparation often remains a rigorous process that accounts for the majority of the variability. Going back to the example of the measurement of pesticides in fish, the final analysis may be carried out in a modern computer-controlled gas chromatograph/mass spectrograph (GC-MS). At the same time, the sample preparation may involve homogenization of the liver in a grinder, followed by Soxhlett extraction, concentration, and cleanup. The sample preparation might take days, whereas the GC-MS analysis is complete in a matter of minutes. The sample preparation also involves several discrete steps that involve manual handling. Consequently, both random and systematic errors are higher during sample preparation than during analysis. The relative contribution of sample preparation depends on the steps in the measurement process. For instance, typically two-thirds of the time in an analytical chromatographic procedure is spent on sample preparation. An example of the determination of olanzapine in serum by high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy (HPLC-MS) illustrates this point [3]. Here, samples were mixed with an internal standard and cleaned up in a

errors in quantitative analysis: accuracy and precision

9

solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridge. The quantitation was done by a calibration curve. The recovery was 87 G 4% for three assays, whereas repeatability of 10 replicate measurements was only 1 to 2%. A detailed error analysis [3] showed that 75% of the uncertainty came from the SPE step and the rest came from the analytical procedure. Of the latter, 24% was attributed to uncertainty in the calibration, and the remaining 1% came from the variation in serum volume. It is also worth noting that improvement in the calibration procedure can be brought about by measures that are significantly simpler than those required for improving the SPE. The variability in SPE can come from the cartridge itself, the washing, the extraction, the drying, or the redissolution steps. There are too many variables to control. Some useful approaches to reducing uncertainty during sample preparation are given below. Minimize the Number of Steps In the example above, the sample preparation contributed 75% of the error. When multiple steps such as those shown in Figure 1.2 are involved, the uncertainty is compounded. A simple dilution example presented in Figure 1.5 illustrates this point. A 1000-fold dilution can be performed in one step: 1 mL to 1000 mL. It can also be performed in three steps of 1 : 10 dilutions each. In the one-step dilution, the uncertainty is from the uncertainty in the volume of the pipette and the flask. In the three-step dilution, three pipettes and three flasks are involved, so the volumetric uncertainty is compounded that many times. A rigorous analysis showed [3] that the uncertainty in the one-step dilution was half of what was expected in the three-step process. If and when possible, one or more sample preparation steps (Figure 1.2) should be eliminated. The greater the number of steps, the more errors there are. For example, if a cleanup step can be eliminated by choosing a selective extraction procedure, that should be adapted. Use Appropriate Techniques Some techniques are known to provide higher variability than others. The choice of an appropriate method at the outset can improve precision. For example, a volume of less than 20 mL can be measured more accurately and precisely with a syringe than with a pipette. Large volumes are amenable to precise handling but result in dilution that lowers sensitivity. The goal should be to choose a combination of sample preparation and analytical instrumentation that reduces both the number of sample preparative steps and the RSD. Automated techniques with less manual handling tend to have higher precision.

10

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

1 ml

1 ml

1000 ml

10 ml

Figure 1.5. Examples of single and multiple dilution of a sample. (Reproduced from Ref. 3 with permission from LC-GC North America.)

1.2.3. Statistical Aspects of Sample Preparation Uncertainty in a method can come from both the sample preparation and the analysis. The total variance is the sum of the two factors: sT2 ¼ ss2 þ sa2

ð1:4Þ

The subscript T stands for the total variance; the subscripts s and a stand for the sample preparation and the analysis, respectively. The variance of the analytical procedure can be subtracted from the total variance to estimate the variance from the sample preparation. This could have contribution from the steps shown in Figure 1.2: 2 ss2 ¼ sh2 þ sex þ sc2 þ scl2

ð1:5Þ

where sh relates to homogenization, sex to extraction, sc to concentration, and scl to cleanup. Consequently, the overall precision is low even when

errors in quantitative analysis: accuracy and precision

11

a high-precision analytical instrument is used in conjunction with lowprecision sample preparation methods. The total variance can be estimated by repeating the steps of sample preparation and analysis several times. Usually, the goal is to minimize the number of samples, yet meet a specific level of statistical certainty. The total uncertainty, E, at a specific confidence level is selected. The value of E and the confidence limits are determined by the measurement quality required: zs E ¼ pffiffiffi n

ð1:6Þ

where s is the standard deviation of the measurement, z the percentile of standard normal distribution, depending on the level of confidence, and n the number of measurements. If the variance due to sample preparation, ss2 , is negligible and most of the uncertainty is attributed to the analysis, the minimum number of analysis per sample is given by na ¼



zsa Ea

2

ð1:7Þ

The number of analyses can be reduced by choosing an alternative method with higher precision (i.e., a lower sa ) or by using a lower value of z, which means accepting a higher level of error. If the analytical uncertainty is negligible ðsa ! 0Þ and sample preparation is the major issue, the minimum number of samples, ns , is given by  2 zss ns ¼ Es

ð1:8Þ

Again, the number of samples can be reduced by accepting a higher uncertainty or by reducing ss . When sa and ss are both significant, the total error ET is given by ET ¼ z

 2 1=2 ss sa2 þ ns na

ð1:9Þ

This equation does not have an unique solution. The same value of error, ET , can be obtained by using di¤erent combinations of ns and na . Combinations of ns and na should be chosen based on scientific judgment and the cost involved in sample preparation and analysis.

12

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

A simple approach to estimating the number of samples is to repeat the sample preparation and analysis to calculate an overall standard deviation, s. Using Student’s t distribution, the number of samples required to achieve a given confidence level is calculated as  2 ts n¼ e

ð1:10Þ

where t is the t-statistic value selected for a given confidence level and e is the acceptable level of error. The degrees of freedom that determine t can first be chosen arbitrarily and then modified by successive iterations until the number chosen matches the number calculated. Example Relative standard deviation of repeat HPLC analysis of a drug metabolite standard was between 2 and 5%. Preliminary measurements of several serum samples via solid-phase extraction cleanup followed by HPLC analyses showed that the analyte concentration was between 5 and 15 mg/L and the standard deviation was 2.5 mg/L. The extraction step clearly increased the random error of the overall process. Calculate the number of samples required so that the sample mean would be within G1.2 mg/L of the population mean at the 95% confidence level. Using equation (1.10), assuming 10 degrees of freedom, and referring to the t-distribution table from a statistics textbook, we have t ¼ 2:23, s ¼ 2:5, and e ¼ 1:2 mg/L, so n ¼ ð2:23  2:5=1:2Þ 2 ¼ 21:58 or 22. Since 22 is significantly larger than 10, a correction must be made with the new value of t corresponding to 21 degrees of freedom ðt ¼ 2:08Þ: n ¼ ð2:08  2:5=1:2Þ 2 ¼ 18:78 or 19. Since 19 and 22 are relatively close, approximately that many samples should be tested. A higher level of error, or a lower confidence level, may be accepted for the reduction in the number of samples.

1.3. METHOD PERFORMANCE AND METHOD VALIDATION

The criteria used for evaluating analytical methods are called figures of merit. Based on these characteristics, one can predict whether a method meets the needs of a certain application. The figures of merit are listed in Table 1.2. Accuracy and precision have already been discussed; other important characteristics are sensitivity, detection limits, and the range of quantitation.

method performance and method validation

13

Table 1.2. Figures of Merit for Instruments or Analytical Methods No.

Parameter

1 2 3

Accuracy Precision Sensitivity

4 5 6 7 8

Detection limit Linear dynamic range Selectivity Speed of analysis Throughput

9 10

Ease of automation Ruggedness

11 12

Portability Greenness

13

Cost

Definition Deviation from true value Reproducubility of replicate measurements Ability to discriminate between small di¤erences in concentration Lowest measurable concentration Linear range of the calibration curve Ability to distinguish the analyte from interferances Time needed for sample preparation and analysis Number of samples that can be run in a given time period How well the system can be automated Durability of measurement, ability to handle adverse conditions Ability to move instrument around Ecoe‰ciency in terms of waste generation and energy consumption Equipment cost þ cost of supplies þ labor cost

1.3.1. Sensitivity The sensitivity of a method (or an instrument) is a measure of its ability to distinguish between small di¤erences in analyte concentrations at a desired confidence level. The simplest measure of sensitivity is the slope of the calibration curve in the concentration range of interest. This is referred to as the calibration sensitivity. Usually, calibration curves for instruments are linear and are given by an equation of the form S ¼ mc þ sbl

ð1:11Þ

where S is the signal at concentration c and sbl is the blank (i.e., signal in the absence of analyte). Then m is the slope of the calibration curve and hence the sensitivity. When sample preparation is involved, recovery of these steps has to be factored in. For example, during an extraction, only a fraction proportional to the extraction e‰ciency r is available for analysis. Then equation (1.11) reduces to S ¼ mrc þ stbl

ð1:12Þ

Now the sensitivity is mr rather than m. The higher the recovery, the higher the sensitivity. Near 100% recovery ensures maximum sensitivity. The

14

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

blank is also modified by the sample preparation step; stbl refers to the blank that arises from total contribution from sample preparation and analysis. Since the precision decreases at low concentrations, the ability to distinguish between small concentration di¤erences also decreases. Therefore, sensitivity as a function of precision is measured by analytical sensitivity, which is expressed as [4] a¼

mr ss

ð1:13Þ

where ss is the standard deviation based on sample preparation and analysis. Due to its dependence on ss , analytical sensitivity varies with concentration. 1.3.2. Detection Limit The detection limit is defined as the lowest concentration or weight of analyte that can be measured at a specific confidence level. So, near the detection limit, the signal generated approaches that from a blank. The detection limit is often defined as the concentration where the signal/noise ratio reaches an accepted value (typically, between 2 and 4). Therefore, the smallest distinguishable signal, Sm , is Sm ¼ Xtbl þ kstbl

ð1:14Þ

where, Xtbl and stbl are the average blank signal and its standard deviation. The constant k depends on the confidence level, and the accepted value is 3 at a confidence level of 89%. The detection limit can be determined experimentally by running several blank samples to establish the mean and standard deviation of the blank. Substitution of equation (1.12) into (1.14) and rearranging shows that Cm ¼

sm

stbl m

ð1:15Þ

where Cm is the minimum detectable concentration and sm is the signal obtained at that concentration. If the recovery in the sample preparation step is factored in, the detection limit is given as Cm ¼

sm

stbl mr

ð1:16Þ

Once again, a low recovery increases the detection limit, and a sample preparation technique should aim at 100% recovery.

method performance and method validation

15

1.3.3. Range of Quantitation The lowest concentration level at which a measurement is quantitatively meaningful is called the limit of quantitation (LOQ). The LOQ is most often defined as 10 times the signal/noise ratio. If the noise is approximated as the standard deviation of the blank, the LOQ is ð10  stbl Þ. Once again, when the recovery of the sample preparation step is factored in, the LOQ of the overall method increases by 1=r. For all practical purposes, the upper limit of quantitation is the point where the calibration curve becomes nonlinear. This point is called the limit of linearity (LOL). These can be seen from the calibration curve presented in Figure 1.3. Analytical methods are expected to have a linear dynamic range (LDR) of at least two orders of magnitude, although shorter ranges are also acceptable. Considering all these, the recovery in sample preparation method is an important parameter that a¤ects quantitative issues such as detection limit, sensitivity, LOQ, and even the LOL. Sample preparation techniques that enhance performance (see Chapters 6, 9, and 10) result in a recovery ðrÞ larger that 1, thus increasing the sensitivity and lowering detection limits. 1.3.4. Other Important Parameters There are several other factors that are important when it comes to the selection of equipment in a measurement process. These parameters are items 7 to 13 in Table 1.2. They may be more relevant in sample preparation than in analysis. As mentioned before, very often the bottleneck is the sample preparation rather than the analysis. The former tends to be slower; consequently, both measurement speed and sample throughput are determined by the discrete steps within the sample preparation. Modern analytical instruments tend to have a high degree of automation in terms of autoinjectors, autosamplers, and automated control/data acquisition. On the other hand, many sample preparation methods continue to be laborintensive, requiring manual intervention. This prolongs analysis time and introduces random/systematic errors. A variety of portable instruments have been developed in the last decade. Corresponding sample preparation, or online sample preparation methods, are being developed to make integrated total analytical systems. Many sample preparation methods, especially those requiring extraction, require solvents and other chemicals. Used reagents end up as toxic wastes, whose disposal is expensive. Greener sample preparation methods generate less spent reagent. Last but not the least, cost, including the cost of equipment, labor, and consumables and supplies, is an important factor.

16

sample preparation: an analytical perspective 1.3.5. Method Validation

Before a new analytical method or sample preparation technique is to be implemented, it must be validated. The various figures of merit need to be determined during the validation process. Random and systematic errors are measured in terms of precision and bias. The detection limit is established for each analyte. The accuracy and precision are determined at the concentration range where the method is to be used. The linear dynamic range is established and the calibration sensitivity is measured. In general, method validation provides a comprehensive picture of the merits of a new method and provides a basis for comparison with existing methods. A typical validation process involves one or more of the following steps:  Determination of the single operator figures of merit. Accuracy, precision, detection limits, linear dynamic range, and sensitivity are determined. Analysis is performed at di¤erent concentrations using standards.  Analysis of unknown samples. This step involves the analysis of samples whose concentrations are unknown. Both qualitative and quantitative measurements should be performed. Reliable unknown samples are obtained from commercial sources or governmental agencies as certified reference materials. The accuracy and precision are determined.  Equivalency testing. Once the method has been developed, it is compared to similar existing methods. Statistical tests are used to determine if the new and established methods give equivalent results. Typical tests include Student’s t-test for a comparison of the means and the F-test for a comparison of variances.  Collaborative testing. Once the method has been validated in one laboratory, it may be subjected to collaborative testing. Here, identical test samples and operating procedures are distributed to several laboratories. The results are analyzed statistically to determine bias and interlaboratory variability. This step determines the ruggedness of the method. Method validation depends on the type and purpose of analysis. For example, the recommended validation procedure for PCR, followed by capillary gel electrophoresis of recombinant DNA, may consist of the following steps: 1. Compare precision by analyzing multiple (say, six) independent replicates of reference standards under identical conditions. 2. Data should be analyzed with a coe‰cient of variation less than a specified value (say, 10%).

preservation of samples

17

3. Validation should be performed on three separate days to compare precision by analyzing three replicates of reference standards under identical conditions (once again the acceptance criteria should be a prespecified coe‰cient of variation). 4. To demonstrate that other analysts can perform the experiment with similar precision, two separate analysts should make three independent measurements (the acceptance criterion is once again a prespecified RSD). 5. The limit of detection, limit of quantitation, and linear dynamic range are to be determined by serial dilution of a sample. Three replicate measurements at each level are recommended, and the acceptance criterion for calibration linearity should be a prespecified correlation coe‰cient (say, an r 2 value of 0.995 or greater). 6. The molecular weight markers should fall within established migration time ranges for the analysis to be acceptable. If the markers are outside this range, the gel electrophoresis run must be repeated.

1.4. PRESERVATION OF SAMPLES

The sample must be representative of the object under investigation. Physical, chemical, and biological processes may be involved in changing the composition of a sample after it is collected. Physical processes that may degrade a sample are volatilization, di¤usion, and adsorption on surfaces. Possible chemical changes include photochemical reactions, oxidation, and precipitation. Biological processes include biodegradation and enzymatic reactions. Once again, sample degradation becomes more of an issue at low analyte concentrations and in trace analysis. The sample collected is exposed to conditions di¤erent from the original source. For example, analytes in a groundwater sample that have never been exposed to light can undergo significant photochemical reactions when exposed to sunlight. It is not possible to preserve the integrity of any sample indefinitely. Techniques should aim at preserving the sample at least until the analysis is completed. A practical approach is to run tests to see how long a sample can be held without degradation and then to complete the analysis within that time. Table 1.3 lists some typical preservation methods. These methods keep the sample stable and do not interfere in the analysis. Common steps in sample preservation are the use of proper containers, temperature control, addition of preservatives, and the observance of recommended sample holding time. The holding time depends on the analyte of interest and the sample matrix. For example, most dissolved metals are

18

sample preparation: an analytical perspective Table 1.3. Sample Preservation Techniques

Sample

Preservation Method

pH

—

—

Temperature

—

—

None

Plastic or glass

28 days

None

Plastic or glass

Cool to 4 C Cool to 4 C Cool to 4 C, add zinc acetate and NaOH to pH 9

Plastic or glass Plastic or glass Plastic or glass

Analyze immediately 24 hours 48 hours 7 days

Filter on site, acidify to pH 2 with HNO2 Acidify to pH 2 with HNO2 Cool to 4 C Acidify to pH 2 with HNO2

Plastic

6 months

Plastic

6 month

Plastic Plastic

24 hours 28 days

Inorganic anions Bromide, chloride fluoride Chlorine Iodide Nitrate, nitrite Sulfide

Metals Dissolved

Total Cr(VI) Hg Organics Organic carbon

Container Type

Holding Time Immediately on site Immediately on site

Plastic or brown glass Glass with Teflon septum cap Glass with Teflon septum cap

28 days

PCBs

Cool to 4 C, add H2 SO2 to pH 2 Cool to 4 C, add 0.008% Na2 S2 O3 Cool to 4 C, add 0.008% Na2 S2 O3 and HCl to pH 2 Cool to 4 C

Glass or Teflon

Organics in soil

Cool to 4 C

Glass or Teflon

Fish tissues

Freeze

Aluminum foil

Biochemical oxygen demand Chemical oxygen demand

Cool to 4 C

Plastic or glass

7 days to extraction, 40 days after As soon as possible As soon as possible 48 hours

Cool to 4 C

Plastic or glass

28 days

Purgeable hydrocarbons Purgeable aromatics

14 days 14 days

(Continued)

19

preservation of samples Table 1.3. (Continued) Sample

Preservation Method

DNA

Store in TE (pH 8) under ethanol at 20 C; freeze at 20 or 80 C Deionized formamide at 80 C Store in argon-filled box; mix with hydrocarbon oil

RNA Solids unstable in air for surface and spectroscopic characterization

Container Type

Holding Time Years

Years

stable for months, whereas Cr(VI) is stable for only 24 hours. Holding time can be determined experimentally by making up a spiked sample (or storing an actual sample) and analyzing it at fixed intervals to determine when it begins to degrade. 1.4.1. Volatilization Analytes with high vapor pressures, such as volatile organics and dissolved gases (e.g., HCN, SO2 ) can easily be lost by evaporation. Filling sample containers to the brim so that they contain no empty space (headspace) is the most common method of minimizing volatilization. Solid samples can be topped with a liquid to eliminate headspace. The volatiles cannot equilibrate between the sample and the vapor phase (air) at the top of the container. The samples are often held at low temperature (4 C) to lower the vapor pressure. Agitation during sample handling should also be avoided. Freezing liquid samples causes phase separation and is not recommended. 1.4.2. Choice of Proper Containers The surface of the sample container may interact with the analyte. The surfaces can provide catalysts (e.g., metals) for reactions or just sites for irreversible adsorption. For example, metals can adsorb irreversibly on glass surfaces, so plastic containers are chosen for holding water samples to be analyzed for their metal content. These samples are also acidified with HNO3 to help keep the metal ions in solution. Organic molecules may also interact with polymeric container materials. Plasticizers such as phthalate esters can di¤use from the plastic into the sample, and the plastic can serve as a sorbent (or a membrane) for the organic molecules. Consequently, glass containers are suitable for organic analytes. Bottle caps should have Teflon liners to preclude contamination from the plastic caps.

20

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

Oily materials may adsorb strongly on plastic surfaces, and such samples are usually collected in glass bottles. Oil that remains on the bottle walls should be removed by rinsing with a solvent and be returned to the sample. A sonic probe can be used to emulsify oily samples to form a uniform suspension before removal for analysis. 1.4.3. Absorption of Gases from the Atmosphere Gases from the atmosphere can be absorbed by the sample during handling, for example, when liquids are being poured into containers. Gases such as O2 , CO2 , and volatile organics may dissolve in the samples. Oxygen may oxidize species, such as sulfite or sulfide to sulfate. Absorption of CO2 may change conductance or pH. This is why pH measurements are always made at the site. CO2 can also bring about precipitation of some metals. Dissolution of organics may lead to false positives for compounds that were actually absent. Blanks are used to check for contamination during sampling, transport, and laboratory handling. 1.4.4. Chemical Changes A wide range of chemical changes are possible. For inorganic samples, controlling the pH can be useful in preventing chemical reactions. For example, metal ions may oxidize to form insoluble oxides or hydroxides. The sample is often acidified with HNO3 to a pH below 2, as most nitrates are soluble, and excess nitrate prevents precipitation. Other ions, such as sulfides and cyanides, are also preserved by pH control. Samples collected for NH3 analysis are acidified with sulfuric acid to stabilize the NH3 as NH4 SO4 . Organic species can also undergo changes due to chemical reactions. Storing the sample in amber bottles prevents photooxidation of organics (e.g., polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons). Organics can also react with dissolved gases; for example, organics can react with trace chlorine to form halogenated compounds in treated drinking water samples. In this case, the addition of sodium thiosulfate can remove the chlorine. Samples may also contain microorganisms, which may degrade the sample biologically. Extreme pH (high or low) and low temperature can minimize microbial degradation. Adding biocides such as mercuric chloride or pentachlorophenol can also kill the microbes. 1.4.5. Preservation of Unstable Solids Many samples are unstable in air. Examples of air-sensitive compounds are alkali metal intercalated C60 , carbon nanotubes, and graphite, which are

postextraction procedures

21

usually prepared in vacuum-sealed tubes. After completion of the intercalation reaction in a furnace, the sealed tubes may be transferred directly to a Raman spectrometer for measurement. Since these compounds are photosensitive, spectra need to be measured using relatively low laser power densities. For x-ray di¤raction, infrared, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), the sealed tubes are transferred to an argon-filled dry box with less than 10 parts per million (ppm) of oxygen. The vacuum tubes are cut open in the dry box and transferred to x-ray sampling capillaries. The open ends of the capillaries are carefully sealed with soft wax to prevent air contamination after removal from the dry box. Samples for infrared spectroscopy are prepared by mixing the solid with hydrocarbon oil and sandwiching a small amount of this suspension between two KBr or NaCl plates. The edges of the plates are then sealed with soft wax. For the XPS measurements, the powder is spread on a tape attached to the sample holder and inserted into a transfer tube of the XPS spectrometer, which had previously been introduced into the dry box. Transfer of unstable compounds into the sampling chamber of transmission and scanning electron microscopes are di‰cult. The best approaches involve preparing the samples in situ for examination.

1.5. POSTEXTRACTION PROCEDURES

1.5.1. Concentration of Sample Extracts The analytes are often diluted in the presence of a large volume of solvents used in the extraction. This is particularly true when the analysis is being done at the trace level. An additional concentration step is necessary to increase the concentration in the extract. If the amount of solvent to be removed is not very large and the analyte is nonvolatile, the solvent can be vaporized by a gentle stream of nitrogen gas flowing either across the surface or through the solution. This is shown in Figure 1.6. Care should be taken that the solvent is lost only by evaporation. If small solution droplets are lost as aerosol, there is the possibility of losing analytes along with it. If large volume reduction is needed, this method is not e‰cient, and a rotary vacuum evaporator is used instead. In this case, the sample is placed in a roundbottomed flask in a heated water bath. A water-cooled condenser is attached at the top, and the flask is rotated continually to expose maximum liquid surface to evaporation. Using a small pump or a water aspirator, the pressure inside the flask is reduced. The mild warming, along with the lowered pressure, removes the solvent e‰ciently, and the condensed solvent distills into a separate flask. Evaporation should stop before the sample reaches dryness.

22

sample preparation: an analytical perspective N2

dispersed small bubbles

Figure 1.6. Evaporation of solvent by nitrogen.

For smaller volumes that must be reduced to less than 1 mL, a Kuderna– Danish concentrator (Figure 1.7) is used. The sample is gently heated in a water bath until the needed volume is reached. An air-cooled condenser provides reflux. The volume of the sample can readily be measured in the narrow tube at the bottom. 1.5.2. Sample Cleanup Sample cleanup is particularly important for analytical separations such as GC, HPLC, and electrophoresis. Many solid matrices, such as soil, can contain hundreds of compounds. These produce complex chromatograms, where the identification of analytes of interest becomes di‰cult. This is especially true if the analyte is present at a much lower concentration than the interfering species. So a cleanup step is necessary prior to the analytical measurements. Another important issue is the removal of high-boiling materials that can cause a variety of problems. These include analyte adsorption in the injection port or in front of a GC-HPLC column, false positives from interferences that fall within the retention window of the analyte, and false negatives because of a shift in the retention time window.

postextraction procedures

23

air-cooled condenser

sample

Figure 1.7. Kuderna–Danish sample concentrator.

In extreme cases, instrument shut down may be necessary due to the accumulation of interfacing species. Complex matrices such as, soil, biological materials, and natural products often require some degree of cleanup. Highly contaminated extracts (e.g., soil containing oil residuals) may require multiple cleanup steps. On the other hand, drinking water samples are relatively cleaner (as many large molecules either precipitate out or do not dissolve in it) and may not require cleanup [5]. The following techniques are used for cleanup and purification of extracts. Gel-Permeation Chromatography Gel-permeation chromatography (GPC) is a size-exclusion method that uses organic solvents (or bu¤ers) and porous gels for the separation of macromolecules. The packing gel is characterized by pore size and exclusion range, which must be larger than the analytes of interest. GPC is recommended for the elimination of lipids, proteins, polymers, copolymers, natural resins, cellular components, viruses, steroids, and dispersed high-molecular-weight compounds from the sample. This method is appropriate for both polar and nonpolar analytes. Therefore, it is used for extracts containing a broad range

24

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

of analytes. Usually, GPC is most e‰cient for removing high-boiling materials that condense in the injection port of a GC or the front of the GC column [6]. The use of GPC in nucleic acid isolation is discussed in Chapter 8. Acid–Base Partition Cleanup Acid–base partition cleanup is a liquid–liquid extraction procedure for the separation of acid analytes, such as organic acids and phenols from base/ neutral analytes (amines, aromatic hydrocarbons, halogenated organic compounds) using pH adjustment. This method is used for the cleanup of petroleum waste prior to analysis or further cleanup. The extract from the prior solvent extraction is shaken with water that is strongly basic. The basic and neutral components stay in the organic solvent, whereas the acid analytes partition into the aqueous phase. The organic phase is concentrated and is ready for further cleanup or analysis. The aqueous phase is acidified and extracted with an organic solvent, which is then concentrated (if needed) and is ready for analysis of the acid analytes (Figure 1.8). Solid-Phase Extraction and Column Chromatography The solvent extracts can be cleaned up by traditional column chromatography or by solid-phase extraction cartridges. This is a common cleanup method that is widely used in biological, clinical, and environmental sample preparation. More details are presented in Chapter 2. Some examples include the cleanup of pesticide residues and chlorinated hydrocarbons, the separation of nitrogen compounds from hydrocarbons, the separation of aromatic compounds from an aliphatic–aromatic mixture, and similar applications for use with fats, oils, and waxes. This approach provides e‰cient cleanup of steroids, esters, ketones, glycerides, alkaloids, and carbohydrates as well. Cations, anions, metals, and inorganic compounds are also candidates for this method [7]. The column is packed with the required amount of a sorbent and loaded with the sample extract. Elution of the analytes is e¤ected with a suitable solvent, leaving the interfering compounds on the column. The packing material may be an inorganic substance such as Florisil (basic magnesium silicate) or one of many commercially available SPE stationary phases. The eluate may be further concentrated if necessary. A Florisil column is shown in Figure 1.9. Anhydrous sodium sulfate is used to dry the sample [8]. These cleanup and concentration techniques may be used individually, or in various combinations, depending on the nature of the extract and the analytical method used.

quality assurance and quality control

25

Sampling

Solvent extraction

Acids Phenols Base/neutral

Extraction with basic solution

Aqueous phase acids and phenols

Basic and neutral fraction

Acidified and extracted with organic solvent

Concentrate

Analysis Concentrate

Analysis Figure 1.8. Acid–base partition cleanup.

1.6. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL DURING SAMPLE PREPARATION

As mentioned earlier, the complete analytical process involves sampling, sample preservation, sample preparation, and finally, analysis. The purpose of quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) is to monitor, measure, and keep the systematic and random errors under control. QA/QC measures are necessary during sampling, sample preparation, and analysis. It has been stated that sample preparation is usually the major source of variability in a measurement process. Consequently, the QA/QC during this step is of utmost importance. The discussion here centers on QC during sample preparation.

26

sample preparation: an analytical perspective Eluting solvent

Anhydrous sodium sulfate for drying

Magnesium sulfate packing

Figure 1.9. Column chromatography for sample cleanup.

Quality assurance refers to activities that demonstrate that a certain quality standard is being met. This includes the management process that implements and documents e¤ective QC. Quality control refers to procedures that lead to statistical control of the di¤erent steps in the measurement process. So QC includes specific activities such as analyzing replicates, ensuring adequate extraction e‰ciency, and contamination control. Some basic components of a QC system are shown in Figure 1.10. Competent personnel and adequate facilities are the most basic QC requirements. Many modern analytical/sample preparation techniques use sophisticated instruments that require specialized training. Good laboratory practice (GLP) refers to the practices and procedures involved in running a laboratory. E‰cient sample handling and management, record keeping, and equipment maintenance fall under this category. Good measurement practices (GMPs) refer to the specific techniques in sample preparation and analysis. On the other hand, GLPs are independent of the specific techniques and refer to general practices in the laboratory. An important QC step is to have formally documented GLPs and GMPs that are followed carefully.

quality assurance and quality control

Good documentation

Evaluation samples

Equipment maintenance and calibration

SOP

QUALITY CONTROL

GLP

GMP

Suitable and well-maintained facilities

Well-trained personnel

27

Figure 1.10. Components of quality control.

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are written descriptions of procedures of methods being followed. The importance of SOPs cannot be understated when it comes to methods being transferred to other operators or laboratories. Strict adherence to the SOPs reduces bias and improves precision. This is particularly true in sample preparation, which tends to consist of repetitive processes that can be carried out by more than one procedure. For example, extraction e‰ciency depends on solvent composition, extraction time, temperature, and even the rate of agitation. All these parameters need to be controlled to reduce variability in measurement. Changing the extraction time will change the extraction e‰ciency, which will increase the relative standard deviation (lower precision). The SOP specifies these parameters. They can come in the form of published standard methods obtained from the literature, or they may be developed in-house. Major sources of SOPs are protocols obtained from organizations, such as the American Society for Testing and Materials and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Finally, there is the need for proper documentation, which can be in written or electronic forms. These should cover every step of the measurement process. The sample information (source, batch number, date), sample preparation/analytical methodology (measurements at every step of the process, volumes involved, readings of temperature, etc.), calibration curves, instrument outputs, and data analysis (quantitative calculations, statistical analysis) should all be recorded. Additional QC procedures, such as blanks, matrix recovery, and control charts, also need to be a part of the record keeping. Good documentation is vital to prove the validity of data. Analyt-

28

sample preparation: an analytical perspective Table 1.4. Procedures in Quality Control

QC Parameters

Procedure

Accuracy Precision Extraction e‰ciency Contamination

Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis

of reference materials or known standards of replicate samples of matrix spikes of blanks

ical data that need to be submitted to regulatory agencies also require detailed documentation of the various QC steps. The major quality parameters to be addressed during sample preparation are listed in Table 1.4. These are accuracy, precision, extraction e‰ciency (or recovery), and contamination control. These quality issues also need to be addressed during the analysis that follows sample preparation. Accuracy is determined by the analysis of evaluation samples. Samples of known concentrations are analyzed to demonstrate that quantitative results are close to the true value. The precision is measured by running replicates. When many samples are to be analyzed, the precision needs to be checked periodically to ensure the stability of the process. Contamination is a serious issue, especially in trace measurements such as environmental analysis. The running of various blanks ensures that contamination has not occurred at any step, or that if it has, where it occurred. As mentioned before, the detection limits, sensitivity, and other important parameters depend on the recovery. The e‰ciency of sample preparation steps such as extraction and cleanup must be checked to ensure that the analytes are being recovered from the sample. 1.6.1. Determination of Accuracy and Precision The levels of accuracy and precision determine the quality of a measurement. The data are as good as random numbers if these parameters are not specified. Accuracy is determined by analyzing samples of known concentration (evaluation samples) and comparing the measured values to the known. Standard reference materials are available from regulatory agencies and commercial vendors. A standard of known concentration may also be made up in the laboratory to serve as an evaluation sample. E¤ective use of evaluation samples depends on matching the standards with the real-world samples, especially in terms of their matrix. Take the example of extraction of pesticides from fish liver. In a real sample, the pesticide is embedded in the liver cells (intracellular matter). If the calibration standards are made by spiking livers, it is possible that the pesticides will be absorbed on the outside of the cells (extracellular). The extraction of

quality assurance and quality control

29

extracellular pesticides is easier than real-world intracellular extractions. Consequently, the extraction e‰ciency of the spiked sample may be significantly higher. Using this as the calibration standard may result in a negative bias. So matrix e¤ects and matrix matching are important for obtaining high accuracy. Extraction procedures that are powerful enough not to have any matrix dependency are desirable. Precision is measured by making replicate measurements. As mentioned before, it is known to be a function of concentration and should be determined at the concentration level of interest. The intrasample variance can be determined by splitting a sample into several subsamples and carrying out the sample preparation/analysis under identical conditions to obtain a measure of RSD. For example, several aliquots of homogenized fish liver can be processed through the same extraction and analytical procedure, and the RSD computed. The intersample variance can be measured by analyzing several samples from the same source. For example, di¤erent fish from the same pond can be analyzed to estimate the intersample RSD. The precision of the overall process is often determined by the extraction step rather than the analytical step. It is easier to get high-precision analytical results; it is much more di‰cult to get reproducible extractions. For example, it is possible to run replicate chromatographic runs (GC or HPLC) with an RSD between 1 and 3%. However, several EPA-approved methods accept extraction e‰ciencies anywhere between 70 and 120%. This range alone represents variability as high as 75%. Consequently, in complex analytical methods that involve several preparative steps, the major contributor to variability is the sample preparation. 1.6.2. Statistical Control Statistical evidence that the precision of the measurement process is within a certain specified limit is referred to as statistical control. Statistical control does not take the accuracy into account. However, the precision of the measurement should be established and statistical control achieved before accuracy can be estimated. Control Charts Control charts are used for monitoring the variability and to provide a graphical display of statistical control. A standard, a reference material of known concentration, is analyzed at specified intervals (e.g., every 50 samples). The result should fall within a specified limit, as these are replicates. The only variation should be from random error. These results are plotted on a control chart to ensure that the random error is not increasing or that a

30

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

Upper limit

Response

x + 3σ

Warning limits

x

x − 3σ Lower limit Measurements

Figure 1.11. Control chart.

systematic bias is not taking place. In the control chart shown in Figure 1.11, replicate measurements are plotted as a function of time. The centerline is the average, or expected value. The upper (UCL) and lower (LCL) control limits are the values within which the measurements must fall. Normally, the control limits are G3s, within which 99.7% of the data should lie. For example, in a laboratory carrying out microwave extraction on a daily basis, a standard reference material is extracted after a fixed number of samples. The measured value is plotted on the control chart. If it falls outside the control limit, readjustments are necessary to ensure that the process stays under control. Control charts are used in many di¤erent applications besides analytical measurements. For example, in a manufacturing process, the control limits are often based on product quality. In analytical measurements, the control limits can be established based on the analyst’s judgment and the experimental results. A common approach is to use the mean of select measurements as the centerline, and then a multiple of the standard deviation is used to set the control limits. Control charts often plot regularly scheduled analysis of a standard reference material or an audit sample. These are then tracked to see if there is a trend or a systematic deviation from the centerline.

quality assurance and quality control

31

Control Samples Di¤erent types of control samples are necessary to determine whether a measurement process is under statistical control. Some of the commonly used control standards are listed here. 1. Laboratory control standards (LCSs) are certified standards obtained from an outside agency or commercial source to check whether the data being generated are comparable to those obtained elsewhere. The LCSs provide a measure of the accuracy and can be used as audits. A source of LCSs is standard reference materials (SRMs), which are certified standards available from the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) in the United States. NIST provides a variety of solid, liquid, and gaseous SRMs which have been prepared to be stable and homogeneous. They are analyzed by more than one independent methods, and their concentrations are certified. Certified standards are also available from the European Union Community Bureau of Reference (BCR), government agencies such as the EPA, and from various companies that sell standards. These can be quite expensive. Often, samples are prepared in the laboratory, compared to the certified standards, and then used as secondary reference materials for daily use. 2. Calibration control standards (CCSs) are used to check calibration. The CCS is the first sample analyzed after calibration. Its concentration may or may not be known, but it is used for successive comparisons. A CCS may be analyzed periodically or after a specified number of samples (say, 20). The CCS value can be plotted on a control chart to monitor statistical control. 1.6.3. Matrix Control Matrix Spike Matrix e¤ects play an important role in the accuracy and precision of a measurement. Sample preparation steps are often sensitive to the matrix. Matrix spikes are used to determine their e¤ect on sample preparation and analysis. Matrix spiking is done by adding a known quantity of a component that is similar to the analyte but not present in the sample originally. The sample is then analyzed for the presence of the spiked material to evaluate the matrix e¤ects. It is important to be certain that the extraction recovers most of the analytes, and spike recovery is usually required to be at least 70%. The matrix spike can be used to accept or reject a method.

32

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

For example, in the analysis of chlorophenol in soil by accelerated solvent extraction followed by GC-MS, deuterated benzene may be used as the matrix spike. The deuterated compound will not be present in the original sample and can easily be identified by GC-MS. At the same time, it has chemical and physical properties that closely match those of the analyte of interest. Often, the matrix spike cannot be carried out at the same time as the analysis. The spiking is carried out separately on either the same matrix or on one that resembles the samples. In the example above, clean soil can be spiked with regular chlorophenol and then the recovery is measured. However, one should be careful in choosing the matrix to be spiked. For instance, it is easy to extract di¤erent analytes from sand, but not so if the analytes have been sitting in clay soil for many years. The organics in the soil may provide additional binding for the analytes. Consequently, a matrix spike may be extracted more easily than the analytes in real-world samples. The extraction spike may produce quantitative recovery, whereas the extraction e‰ciency for real samples may be significantly lower. This is especially true for matrix-sensitive techniques, such as supercritical extraction. Surrogate Spike Surrogate spikes are used in organic analysis to determine if an analysis has gone wrong. They are compounds that are similar in chemical composition and have similar behavior during sample preparation and analysis. For example, a deuterated analog of the analyte is an ideal surrogate during GC-MS analysis. It behaves like the analyte and will not be present in the sample originally. The surrogate spike is added to the samples, the standards, the blanks, and the matrix spike. The surrogate recovery is computed for each run. Unusually high or low recovery indicates a problem, such as contamination or instrument malfunction. For example, consider a set of samples to be analyzed for gasoline contamination by purge and trap. Deuterated toluene is added as a surrogate to all the samples, standards, and blanks. The recovery of the deuterated toluene in each is checked. If the recovery in a certain situation is unusually high or low, that particular analysis is rejected. 1.6.4. Contamination Control Many measurement processes are prone to contamination, which can occur at any point in the sampling, sample preparation, or analysis. It can occur in the field during sample collection, during transportation, during storage, in the sample workup prior to measurement, or in the instrument itself. Some

quality assurance and quality control

33

Table 1.5. Sources of Sample Contamination Measurement Step

Sources of Contamination

Sample collection

Equipment Sample handling and preservation Sample containers

Sample transport and storage

Sample containers Cross-contamination from other samples

Sample preparation

Sample handling, carryover in instruments Dilutions, homogenization, size reduction Glassware and instrument Ambient contamination

Sample analysis

Carryover in instrument Instrument memory e¤ects Reagents Syringes

common sources of contamination are listed in Table 1.5. Contamination becomes a major issue in trace analysis. The lower the concentration, the more pronounced is the e¤ect of contamination. Sampling devices themselves can be a source of contamination. Contamination may come from the material of construction or from improper cleaning. For example, polymer additives can leach out of plastic sample bottles, and organic solvents can dissolve materials from surfaces, such as cap liners of sample vials. Carryover from previous samples is also possible. Say that a sampling device was used where the analyte concentration was at the 1 ppm level. A 0.1% carryover represents a 100% error if the concentration of the next sample is at 1 part per billion (ppb). Contamination can occur in the laboratory at any stage of sample preparation and analysis. It can come from containers and reagents or from the ambient environment itself. In general, contamination can be reduced by avoiding manual sample handling and by reducing the number of discrete processing steps. Sample preparations that involve many unautomated manual steps are prone to contamination. Contaminating sources can also be present in the instrument. For instance, the leftover compounds from a previous analysis can contaminate incoming samples. Blanks Blanks are used to assess the degree of contamination in any step of the measurement process. They may also be used to correct relatively constant,

34

sample preparation: an analytical perspective Table 1.6. Types of Blanks

Blank Type System or instrument blank Solvent or calibration blank

Method blank

Matchedmatrix blank

Sampling media

Equipment blank

Purpose

Process

Establishes the baseline of an instrument in the absence of sample To measure the amount of the analytical signal that arises from the solvents and reagents; the zero solution in the calibration series To detect contamination from reagents, sample handling, and the entire measurement process To detect contamination from field handling, transportation, or storage

Determine the background signal with no sample present Analytical instrument is run with solvents/reagents only

To detect contamination in the sampling media such as filters and sample adsorbent traps To determine contamination of equipment and assess the e‰ciency or equipment cleanup procedures

A blank is taken through the entire measurement procedure A synthetic sample that matches the basic matrix of the sample is carried to the field and is treated in the same fashion as the sample Analyze samples of unused filters or traps to detect contaminated batches Samples of final equipment cleaning rinses are analyzed for contaminants

unavoidable contamination. Blanks are samples that do not contain any (or a negligible amount of ) analyte. They are made to simulate the sample matrix as closely as possible. Di¤erent types of blanks are used, depending on the procedure and the measurement objectives. Some common blanks are listed in Table 1.6. Blank samples from the laboratory and the field are required to cover all the possible sources of contamination. We focus here on those blanks that are important from a sample preparation perspective. System or Instrument Blank. It is a measure of system contamination and is the instrumental response in the absence of any sample. When the background signal is constant and measurable, the usual practice is to consider that level to be the zero setting. It is generally used for analytical instruments but is also applicable for instruments for sample preparation.

references

35

The instrument blank also identifies memory e¤ects or carryover from previous samples. It may become significant when a low-concentration sample is analyzed immediately after a high-concentration sample. This is especially true where preconcentration and cryogenic steps are involved. For example, during the purge and trap analysis of volatile organics, some components may be left behind in the sorbent trap or at a cold spot in the instrument. So it is a common practice to run a deionized water blank between samples. These blanks are critical in any instrument, where sample components may be left behind only to emerge during the next analysis. Solvent/ Reagent Blank. A solvent blank checks solvents and reagents that are used during sample preparation and analysis. Sometimes, a blank correction or zero setting is done based on the reagent measurement. For example, in atomic or molecular spectroscopy, the solvents and reagents used in sample preparation are used to provide the zero setting. Method Blank. A method blank is carried through all the steps of sample preparation and analysis as if it were an actual sample. This is most important from the sample preparation prospective. The same solvents/reagents that are used with the actual samples are used here. For example, in the analysis of metals in soil, a clean soil sample may serve as a method blank. It is put through the extraction, concentration, and analysis steps encountered by the real samples. The method blank accounts for contamination that may occur during sample preparation and analysis. These could arise from the reagents, the glassware, or the laboratory environment. Other types of blanks may be employed as the situation demands. It should be noted that blanks are e¤ective only in identifying contamination. They do not account for various errors that might exist. Blanks are seldom used to correct for contamination. More often, a blank above a predetermined value is used to reject analytical data, making reanalysis and even resampling necessary. The laboratory SOPs should identify the blanks necessary for contamination control.

REFERENCES 1. D. Scoog, D. West, and J. Holler, Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry, Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 1992. 2. W. Horwitz, L. Kamps, and K. Boyer, J. Assoc. O¤. Anal. Chem., 63, 1344–1354 (1980). 3. V. Meyer, LC-GC North Am., 20, 106–112, 2 (2002).

36

sample preparation: an analytical perspective

4. B. Kebbekus and S. Mitra, Environmental Chemical Analysis, Chapman & Hall, New York, 1998. 5. Test Methods: Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater, U.S. EPA-600/4-82-057. 6. U.S. EPA method 3640A, Gel-Permeation Cleanup, 1994, pp. 1–15. 7. V. Lopez-Avila, J. Milanes, N. Dodhiwala, and W. Beckert, J. Chromatogr. Sci., 27, 109–215 (1989). 8. P. Mills, J. Assoc. O¤. Anal. Chem., 51, 29 (1968).

CHAPTER 2

PRINCIPLES OF EXTRACTION AND THE EXTRACTION OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS FROM LIQUIDS MARTHA J. M. WELLS Center for the Management, Utilization and Protection of Water Resources and Department of Chemistry, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee

2.1. PRINCIPLES OF EXTRACTION

This chapter focuses on three widely used techniques for extraction of semivolatile organics from liquids: liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), solid-phase extraction (SPE), and solid-phase microextraction (SPME). Other techniques may be useful in selected circumstances, but these three techniques have become the extraction methods of choice for research and commercial analytical laboratories. A fourth, recently introduced technique, stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE), is also discussed. To understand any extraction technique it is first necessary to discuss some underlying principles that govern all extraction procedures. The chemical properties of the analyte are important to an extraction, as are the properties of the liquid medium in which it is dissolved and the gaseous, liquid, supercritical fluid, or solid extractant used to e¤ect a separation. Of all the relevant solute properties, five chemical properties are fundamental to understanding extraction theory: vapor pressure, solubility, molecular weight, hydrophobicity, and acid dissociation. These essential properties determine the transport of chemicals in the human body, the transport of chemicals in the air–water–soil environmental compartments, and the transport between immiscible phases during analytical extraction. Extraction or separation of dissolved chemical component X from liquid phase A is accomplished by bringing the liquid solution of X into contact with a second phase, B, given that phases A and B are immiscible. Phase B may be a solid, liquid, gas, or supercritical fluid. A distribution of the comSample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry, Edited by Somenath Mitra ISBN 0-471-32845-6 Copyright 6 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

37

38

principles of extraction

ponent between the immiscible phases occurs. After the analyte is distributed between the two phases, the extracted analyte is released and/or recovered from phase B for subsequent extraction procedures or for instrumental analysis. The theory of chemical equilibrium leads us to describe the reversible distribution reaction as XA Ð XB

ð2:1Þ

and the equilibrium constant expression, referred to as the Nernst distribution law [1], is KD ¼

½XŠB ½XŠA

ð2:2Þ

where the brackets denote the concentration of X in each phase at constant temperature (or the activity of X for nonideal solutions). By convention, the concentration extracted into phase B appears in the numerator of equation (2.2). The equilibrium constant is independent of the rate at which it is achieved. The analyst’s function is to optimize extracting conditions so that the distribution of solute between phases lies far to the right in equation (2.1) and the resulting value of KD is large, indicating a high degree of extraction from phase A into phase B. Conversely, if KD is small, less chemical X is transferred from phase A into phase B. If KD is equal to 1, equivalent concentrations exist in each phase. 2.1.1. Volatilization Volatilization of a chemical from the surface of a liquid is a partitioning process by which the chemical distributes itself between the liquid phase and the gas above it. Organic chemicals said to be volatile exhibit the greatest tendency to cross the liquid–gas interface. When compounds volatilize, the concentration of the organic analyte in the solution is reduced. Semivolatile and nonvolatile (or involatile) describe chemicals having, respectively, less of a tendency to escape the liquid they are dissolved in and pass into the atmosphere above the liquid. As discussed in this book, certain sample preparation techniques are clearly more appropriate for volatile compounds than for semivolatile and nonvolatile compounds. In this chapter we concentrate on extraction methods for semivolatile organics from liquids. Techniques for extraction of volatile organics from solids and liquids are discussed in Chapter 4.

principles of extraction

39

Henry’s Law Constant If the particular extracting technique applied to a solution depends on the volatility of the solute between air and water, a parameter to predict this behavior is needed to avoid trial and error in the laboratory. The volatilization or escaping tendency (fugacity) of solute chemical X can be estimated by determining the gaseous, G, to liquid, L, distribution ratio, KD , also called the nondimensional, or dimensionless, Henry’s law constant, H 0 . H 0 ¼ KD ¼

½XŠG ½XŠL

ð2:3Þ

The larger the magnitude of the Henry’s law constant, the greater the tendency for volatilization from the liquid solvent into the gaseous phase [2–4]. According to equation (2.3), the Henry’s law constant can be estimated by measuring the concentration of X in the gaseous phase and in the liquid phase at equilibrium. In practice, however, the concentration is more often measured in one phase while concentration in the second phase is determined by mass balance. For dilute neutral compounds, the Henry’s law constant can be estimated from the ratio of vapor pressure, Pvp , and solubility, S, taking the molecular weight into consideration by expressing the molar concentration: H¼

Pvp S

ð2:4Þ

where Pvp is in atm and S is in mol/m 3 , so H is in atm
m 3 /mol. Vapor Pressure The vapor pressure, Pvp , of a liquid or solid is the pressure of the compound’s vapor (gas) in equilibrium with the pure, condensed liquid or solid phase of the compound at a given temperature [5–9]. Vapor pressure, which is temperature dependent, increases with temperature. The vapor pressure of chemicals varies widely according to the degree of intermolecular attractions between like molecules: The stronger the intermolecular attraction, the lower the magnitude of the vapor pressure. Vapor pressure and the Henry’s law constant should not be confused. Vapor pressure refers to the volatility from the pure substance into the atmosphere; the Henry’s law constant refers to the volatility of the compound from liquid solution into the air. Vapor pressure is used to estimate the Henry’s law constant [equation (2.4)].

40

principles of extraction Solubility

Solubility is also used to estimate the Henry’s law constant [equation (2.4)]. Solubility is the maximum amount of a chemical that can be dissolved into another at a given temperature. Solubility can be determined experimentally or estimated from molecular structure [6,10–12]. The Henry’s law constant, H, calculated from the ratio of vapor pressure and solubility [equation (2.4)] can be converted to the dimensionless Henry’s law constant, H 0 , [equation (2.3)] by the expression H0 ¼

Pvp ðMWÞ 0:062ST

ð2:5Þ

where Pvp is the vapor pressure in mmHg, MW the molecular weight, S the water solubility in mg/L, T the temperature in Kelvin, and 0.062 is the appropriate universal gas constant [9]. For the analyst’s purposes, it is usually su‰cient to categorize the escaping tendency of the organic compound from a liquid to a gas as high, medium, or low. According to Henry’s law expressed as equation (2.4), estimating the volatilization tendency requires consideration of both the vapor pressure and the solubility of the organic solute. Ney [13] ranks vapor pressures as  Low: 1  10 6 mmHg  Medium: between 1  10 6 and 1  10  High: greater than 1  10 2 mmHg

2

mmHg

while ranking water solubilities as  Low: less than 10 ppm  Medium: between 10 and 1000 ppm  High: greater than 1000 ppm However, note that in Ney’s approach, concentration expressed in parts per million (ppm) does not incorporate molecular weight. Therefore, it does not consider the identity or molecular character of the chemical. Rearranging equation (2.4) produces Pvp ¼ HS

ð2:6Þ

In this linear form, a plot (Figure 2.1) of vapor pressure (y-axis) versus solubility (x-axis) yields a slope representing the Henry’s law constant at values

principles of extraction

41

Figure 2.1. Henry’s law constant at values of constant H conceptually represented by diagonal (dotted) lines on a plot of vapor pressure (Pvp ) versus solubility, S.

of constant H. From this figure it can be deduced that low volatility from liquid solution is observed for organic chemicals with low vapor pressure and high solubility, whereas high volatility from liquid solution is exhibited by compounds with high vapor pressure and low solubility. Intermediate levels of volatility result from all other vapor pressure and solubility combinations. H is a ratio, so it is possible for compounds with low vapor pressure and low solubility, medium vapor pressure and medium solubility, or high vapor pressure and high solubility to exhibit nearly equivalent volatility from liquid solution. The Henry’s law constant can be used to determine which extraction techniques are appropriate according to solute volatility from solution. If the Henry’s law constant of the analyte (solute) is less than the Henry’s law constant of the solvent, the solute is nonvolatile in the solvent and the solute concentration will increase as the solvent evaporates. If the Henry’s law constant of the analyte (solute) is greater than the Henry’s law constant of the solvent, the solute is semivolatile to volatile in the solvent. In a solution open to the atmosphere, the solute concentration will decrease because the solute will evaporate more rapidly than the solvent. Mackay and Yuen [2] and Thomas [4] provide these guidelines for organic solutes in water (Figure 2.2):

42

Figure 2.2. Solubility, vapor pressure, and Henry’s law constant for selected chemicals [2,4]. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 2. Copyright 6 1980 Elsevier Science.)

principles of extraction

43

 Nonvolatile: volatilization is unimportant for H < 3  10 7 atm
m 3 / mol (i.e., H for water itself at 15 C)  Semivolatile: volatilizes slowly for 3  10 7 < H < 10 5 atm
m 3 /mol  Volatile: volatilization is significant in the range 10 5 < H < 10 3 atm
m 3 /mol  Highly volatile: volatilization is rapid if H > 10 3 atm
m 3 /mol Schwarzenbach et al. [8] illustrate the Henry’s law constant (Figure 2.3c) for selected families of hydrocarbons in relation to vapor pressure (Figure 2.3a) and solubility (Figure 2.3b). Vapor pressure (Figure 2.3a) and solubility (Figure 2.3b) tend to decrease with increasing molecular size. In Figure 2.3c, the Henry’s law constant is expressed in units of atm
L/mol, whereas the Henry’s law constant in Figure 2.2 is expressed in units of atm
m 3 /mol. Applying Mackay and Yuen’s, and Thomas’s volatility guidelines to the units in Figure 2.3c, the Henry’s law constant for semivolatile compounds in water lies between 3  10 4 < H < 10 2 atm
L/mol (since 1 L ¼ 0.001 m 3 ). Highly volatile compounds lie above a Henry’s law constant of 1 atm
L/mol. For example, Figure 2.3c illustrates that a high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) such as benzo[a]pyrene (C 20 H12 ) is semivolatile in its tendency to escape from water according to the Henry’s law constant, whereas a low-molecular-weight PAH, naphthalene (C10 H8 ), is volatile. The most common gas–liquid pair encountered in analytical extractions is the air–water interface. The extraction methods discussed in this chapter are most applicable to organic solutes that are considered nonvolatile and semivolatile. However, it is possible to extend these techniques to more volatile chemicals as long as careful consideration of the tendency of the solute to volatilize is made throughout the extraction process. 2.1.2. Hydrophobicity Studies about the nature of the hydrophobic e¤ect have appeared in the literature since the early work of Traube in 1891 [14]. According to Tanford, a hydrophobic e¤ect arises when any solute is dissolved in water [15]. (Hydrophobic e¤ects, hydrophobic bonds, and hydrophobic interactions are used synonymously in the literature.) A hydrophobic bond has been defined as one ‘‘which forms when non-polar groups in an aqueous solvent associate, thereby decreasing the extent of interaction with surrounding water molecules, and liberating water originally bound by the solutes’’ [16]. In the past, the hydrophobic e¤ect was believed to arise from the attraction of nonpolar groups for each other [17]. Although a ‘‘like-attracts-like’’ interaction certainly plays a role in this phenomenon, current opinion views the strong

44 o



(b) (Cwsat ),

(c)

Figure 2.3. Ranges of (a) saturation vapor pressure (P ) values at 25 C, (b) water solubilities and (c) Henry’s law constants (K H ) for some important classes of organic compounds. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 8. Copyright 6 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

(a)

principles of extraction

45

forces between water molecules as the primary cause of the hydrophobic e¤ect. The detailed molecular structure of liquid water is complex and not well understood [18]. Many of the unusual properties of water are the result of the three-dimensional network of hydrogen bonds linking individual molecules together [19]. The attractive forces between water molecules are strong, and foreign molecules disrupt the isotropic arrangement of the molecules of water. When a nonpolar solute is dissolved in water, it is incapable of forming hydrogen bonds with the water, so some hydrogen bonds will have to be broken to accommodate the intruder. The breaking of hydrogen bonds requires energy. Frank and Evans [20] suggested that the water molecules surrounding a nonpolar solute must rearrange themselves to regenerate the broken bonds. Thermodynamic calculations indicate that when this rearrangement occurs, a higher degree of local order exists than in pure liquid water. Tanford [15] concludes that the water molecules surrounding a nonpolar solute do not assume one unique spatial arrangement, but are capable of assuming various arrangements, subject to changes in temperature and hydrocarbon chain length. The first layer of water molecules surrounding the solute cavity and subsequent layers are often termed flickering clusters [20–22]. An intruding hydrocarbon must compete with the tendency of water to re-form the original structure and is ‘‘squeezed’’ out of solution [23]. This hydrophobic e¤ect is attributed to the high cohesive energy density of water because the interactions of water with a nonpolar solute are weaker than the interactions of water with itself [24]. Leo [22] notes that ‘‘part of the energy ‘cost’ of creating the cavity in each solvent is ‘paid back’ when the solvent interacts favorably with parts of the solute surface.’’ Recognizing that the hydrophobic e¤ect (or more generally, a solvophobic e¤ect) exists when solutes are dissolved in water leads to considering the influence of this property on the distribution of a solute between immiscible phases during extraction. A parameter that measures hydrophobicity is needed. This parameter is considered important to describe transport between water and hydrophobic biological phases (such as lipids or membranes), between water and hydrophobic environmental phases (such as organic humic substances), and between water and hydrophobic extractants (such as methylene chloride or reversed-phase solid sorbents). Although the earliest attempts to quantitate hydrophobicity used olive oil as the immiscible reference phase [25,26], since the 1950s, n-octanol has gained widespread favor as the reference solvent [27]. The general equilibrium constant expression in equation (2.2) can be rewritten to express the distribution of solute chemical X between water (W) and n-octanol (O) as

46

principles of extraction K OW ¼ KD ¼

½XŠO ½XŠW

ð2:7Þ

The n-octanol/water partition coe‰cient, K OW (also referred to as POW , P, or Poct ), is a dimensionless, ‘‘operational’’ [21] or ‘‘phenomenological’’ [24] definition of hydrophobicity based on the n-octanol reference system [28]. The amount of transfer of a solute from water into a particular immiscible solvent or bulk organic matter will not be identical to the mass transfer observed in the n-octanol/water system, but K OW is often directly proportional to the partitioning of a solute between water and various other hydrophobic phases [8]. The larger the value of K OW , the greater is the tendency of the solute to escape from water and transfer to a bulk hydrophobic phase. When comparing the K OW values of two solutes, the compound with the higher number is said to be the more hydrophobic of the two. The n-octanol/water reference system covers a wide scale of distribution coe‰cients, with K OW values varying with organic molecular structure (Figure 2.4). The magnitude of the n-octanol/water partition coe‰cient generally increases with molecular weight. The di¤erences in K OW cover several orders of magnitude, such that hydrophobicity values are often reported on a logarithmic scale (i.e., log K OW or log P), in the range 4.0 to þ6.0 [21]. The distribution coe‰cient refers to the hydrophobicity of the entire molecule. Within a family of organic compounds it is sometimes useful to deal with hydrophobic substituent constants that relate the hydrophobicity of a derivative, log PX , to that of the parent molecule, log PH . Therefore, a substituent parameter, p, has been defined [21] as p X ¼ log PX

log PH

ð2:8Þ

where a positive value means the substituent is more hydrophobic (i.e., prefers n-octanol to water) relative to hydrogen, and a negative value indicates that the substituent prefers the water phase and is more hydrophilic than hydrogen (Table 2.1). The hydrophobic contribution of a substituent such as CH3 , Cl, OH, or NO2 varies according to the molecular subenvironment of the substituent [21,30]. In order to use the value of the distribution coe‰cient between n-octanol and water as a guide for methodology to use when extracting organic compounds from water, the e¤ect of variation in the degree of hydrophobicity must be considered. If a solute has low hydrophobicity, according to equation (2.7), it will prefer to remain in the aqueous phase relative to n-octanol. If a solute has very high hydrophobicity, it will prefer to be in the n-octanol phase. Intuitively, highly hydrophobic organic chemicals are easier to extract from water by a second immiscible, hydrophobic phase, but analyti-

principles of extraction

47

Figure 2.4. Ranges in octanol–water partition constants (K OW ) for some important classes of organic compounds. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 8. Copyright 6 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

cally they can subsequently be di‰cult to remove from the immiscible phase. Ney [13] defines low K OW as values less than 500 (log K OW ¼ 2:7), midrange values as 500 a K OW a 1000 (2:7 a log K OW a 3:0), and high K OW values as greater than 1000 (log K OW > 3:0). Others [31,32] found it useful to consider compounds with a log K OW less than 1 as highly hydrophilic, and compounds with a log K OW above 3 to 4 (depending on the nature of the immiscible phase) as highly hydrophobic. The relationship between water solubility and the n-octanol/water partition coe‰cient must be addressed. Why are both parameters included in

48

0.02 0.56 0.28 0.71

Monobenzenes

0.04 0.52 0.24 0.70

Phenoxyacetic Acid

Source: Data from Refs. 21, 29, and 30.

OCH3 CH3 NO2 Cl

Functional Group 0.01 0.45 0.04 0.70

Phenylacetic Acid 0.08 0.42 0.02 0.87

Benzoic Acid 0 0.48 0.16 0.86

Benzyl Alcohol 0.18 0.52 0.39 0.54

Nitrobenzenes

Aromatic Para-Substituted Systems (p)

0.21 0.53 0.17 0.88

Benzamides

Table 2.1. Substituent Constants Derived from Partition Coe‰cients

0.12 0.48 0.50 0.93

Phenols

0.49 0.49

Anilines

0.02 0.24 0.50 0.71

Acetanilides

49

Logarithm of Aqueous Solubility (mmol/m3)

principles of extraction 5 y = −1.0584x + 6.5821 R2 = 0.9991

benzene 4 toluene 3 n-propylbenzene 2

n-butylbenzene n-pentylbenzene

1 n-hexylbenzene 0 0

1

2

3

4 Log Kow

5

6

7

8

Figure 2.5. Comparison of hydrophobicity and aqueous solubility for a series of nalkylbenzenes. (Data from Ref. 33.)

Logarithm of Aqueous Solubility (mmol/m3)

5 y = −1.1048x + 6.6651 R2 = 0.9403

4 3 2 1 0 −1 −2

0

1

2

3

4 Log Kow

Monoaromatic HCs

5

6

7

8

PAHs

Figure 2.6. Comparison of hydrophobicity and aqueous solubility for monoaromatic hydrocarbons (HCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). (Data from Ref. 6 and 33.)

50

principles of extraction

the list of key chemical properties? In general, there is a trend toward an inverse relationship between these parameters such that high water solubility is generally accompanied by low hydrophobicity, and vice versa. Many authors use this relationship to estimate one of these parameters from the other. However, it is this author’s opinion that the n-octanol/water partition coe‰cient and water solubility are not interchangeable (via inverse relationships) because they measure di¤erent phenomena. Water solubility is a property measured at maximum capacity or saturation. The n-octanol/ water partition coe‰cient measures distribution across an interface. While the relationship between water solubility and the n-octanol/water partition coe‰cient may be highly correlated for closely related families of congeners (Figure 2.5), as the diversity of the compounds compared increases, the correlation between these two parameters decreases (Figure 2.6). However, solubility should remain on the list of essential chemical properties because if the value of the octanol–water partition coe‰cient is unavailable, water solubility can be used as a surrogate. Also, solubility is used to estimate the Henry’s law constant. 2.1.3. Acid–Base Equilibria The acid–base character of a chemical and the pH of the aqueous phase determine the distribution of ionized–nonionized species in solution. Starting from the equilibrium dissociation of a weak acid, HA, HA Ð Hþ þ A

ð2:9Þ

the equilibrium constant for dissociation of a weak acid can be written as Ka ¼

½Hþ Š½A Š ½HAŠ

ð2:10Þ

Analogously, the dissociation of the conjugate acid, BHþ , of a base, B, is described as BHþ Ð Hþ þ B

ð2:11Þ

and the related constant is Ka ¼

½Hþ Š½BŠ ½BHþ Š

ð2:12Þ

Ionizable compounds’ K a values (Figure 2.7) have an orders-of-magnitude

principles of extraction

51

Figure 2.7. Ranges of acid dissociation constants (pK a ) for some important classes of organic compounds. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 8. Copyright 6 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

range. This makes it useful to describe K a values in terms of logarithms; that is, pK a ¼ log K a . Two graphical methods described here, a master variable (pC–pH) diagram and a distribution ratio diagram, are extremely useful aids for visualizing and solving acid–base problems. They help to determine the pH at which an extraction should be performed. Both involve the choice of a master variable, a variable important to the solution of the problem at hand. The obvious choice for a master variable in acid–base problems is [Hþ ] [equations (2.9)–(2.12)], or pH when expressed as the negative logarithm of [Hþ ].

52

principles of extraction pH 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

0 1 2

[H+]

[OH−]

3 4 5 pC

6 7

2,4-DB [COO−]

2,4-DB [COOH]

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Figure 2.8. Master variable (pC–pH) diagram for 2,4-DB; pK a ¼ 4:8, CT ¼ 1  10

8

M.

To prepare a pC–pH diagram, the master variable, pH, is plotted on the x-axis. On the y-axis, the concentration of chemical species is plotted as a function of pH. The concentration, C, of each chemical species is expressed as a logarithm (log C), or more often as the negative logarithm of its concentration, that is pC (analogous to pH). The pC–pH diagram (Figure 2.8) for a representative acidic solute, 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acid or 2,4-DB, is prepared by first determining that the pK a for this compound is 4.8. A reasonable concentration to assume for trace levels of this compound in water is 2.5 ppm or 1  10 8 M, since the molecular weight of 2,4-DB is 249.1. Based on the molar concentration of 1  10 8 , pC has a value of 8. By mass balance, the total concentration at any given pH value, CT , is the sum of all species. That is, CT ¼ ½HAŠ þ ½A Š

ð2:13Þ

for a monoprotic acid, as in the example in Figure 2.8. The diagonal line connecting pH, pC values ð0; 0Þ with ð14; 14Þ represents the hydrogen ion concentration, and the diagonal line connecting pH, pC values ð0; 14Þ with ð14; 0Þ represents the hydroxide ion concentration, according to the expression ½Hþ Š½OH Š ¼ KW ¼ 10

14

ð2:14Þ

53

principles of extraction

where KW is the ion product of water. The vertical line in Figure 2.8 indicates data at which the pH ¼ pK a . To graph the curves representing [HA] and [A ], a mathematical expression of each as a function of [Hþ ] (a function of the master variable) is needed. The appropriate equation for [HA] is derived by combining the equilibrium constant for dissociation of a weak acid [equation (2.10)] with the mass balance equation [equation (2.13)] to yield ½HAŠ ¼

½Hþ ŠCT ½Hþ Š þ K a

ð2:15Þ

K a CT ½Hþ Š þ K a

ð2:16Þ

Analogously, solving for [A ] yields ½A Š ¼

Point-by-point plotting of equations (2.15) and (2.16) produces the curves for the nonionized, 2,4-DB[COOH], and ionized, 2,4-DB[COO ], species in Figure 2.8. This approach can be expanded to generate master variable diagrams of more complex polyprotic systems (Figure 2.9) such as phosphoric

pH 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

0 1 2 3

[H3PO4]

[H2PO −4]

−

[HPO42 ]

−

[PO43 ]

4 5 pC

6 7 8 9

[OH−]

[H+]

10 11 12 13 14 Figure 2.9. Master variable (pC–pH) diagram for phosphoric acid: pK a1 ¼ 2:15, pK a2 ¼ 7:20, and pK a3 ¼ 12:35, CT ¼ 1  10 3 M.

54

principles of extraction

acid. Figure 2.9 was generated by using the acid dissociation constants of phosphoric acid, pK a1 ¼ 2:15, pK a2 ¼ 7:20, and pK a3 ¼ 12:35. Additionally, a total phosphate concentration of 0.001 M was assumed. In this case, CT ¼ ½H3 PO4 Š þ ½H2 PO4 Š þ ½HPO42 Š þ ½PO43 Š. Figures 2.8 and 2.9 were produced using a free software package, EnviroLand version 2.50, available for downloading from the Internet [34]. Alternatively, equations (2.15) and (2.16) can be input to spreadsheet software to produce pC–pH diagrams. A second graphical approach to understanding acid–base equilibria is preparation of a distribution ratio diagram. The fraction, a, of the total amount of a particular species is plotted on the y-axis versus the master variable, pH, on the x-axis, where a HA ¼

½HAŠ ½A Š þ ½HAŠ

ð2:17Þ

aA ¼

½A Š ½A Š þ ½HAŠ

ð2:18Þ

and

By combining equations (2.15), (2.16), and (2.18), a distribution diagram (Figure 2.10) for acetic acid can be prepared given that the acid dissociation constant is 1:8  10 5 with an assumed concentration of 0.01 M. The vertical line in Figure 2.10, positioned at x ¼ 4:74, is a reminder that when the pH of the solution is equal to the pK a of the analyte, the a value is 0.5, which signifies that the concentration of HA is equal to the concentration of A . The distribution diagram can be used to determine the fraction of ionized or nonionized acetic acid at any selected pH. Another way of understanding the distribution of species as a function of pH is to apply the Henderson–Hasselbach equation: pH ¼ pK a þ log

½A Š ½HAŠ

ð2:19Þ

which is derived by taking the negative logarithm of both sides of equation (2.10). The Henderson–Hasselbach equation provides a useful relationship between system pH and acid–base character taking the ratio of ionized to nonionized species into consideration. To calculate the relative amount of A present in a solution in which the pH is 1 unit above the pK a (i.e., pH ¼ pK a þ 1), apply the Henderson–

55

principles of extraction 1 0.9

α[CH3COO− ]

α[CH3COOH]

0.8 0.7

alpha

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

pH Figure 2.10. Distribution diagram for acetic acid; pK a ¼ 4:74, CT ¼ 1  10

2

M.

Hasselbach equation such that 1 ¼ log

½A Š ½HAŠ

ð2:20Þ

and taking the antilogarithm of both sides yields 10 ¼

½A Š ½HAŠ

ð2:21Þ

Assume that the only species present are HA and A such that ½HAŠ þ ½A Š ¼ 1

ð2:22Þ

Rearranging equation (2.22) to solve for [HA] and substituting into equation (2.21) gives 10 ¼

1

½A Š ½A Š

ð2:23Þ

56 Percent Species Present at Specified Solution pH

principles of extraction 100 80 60 40 20 0

pH = pH = pKa − 2 pKa − 1

pH = pKa

pH = pH = pKa + 1 pKa + 2

nonionized acid (HA) or ionized conjugate acid (BH+)

99

91

50

9

1

ionized acid (A−) or unionized base (B)

1

9

50

91

99

Figure 2.11. Percent of ionogenic (ionizable) species present for weak acids and bases when solution pH is 2 units above or below the acid dissociation constant.

and therefore [A ] ¼ 0.909. In an analogous manner, it is possible to calculate that the fraction of [A ] present in a solution in which the pH is 2 units above the pK a (i.e., pH ¼ pK a þ 2) is 0.990. According to the Henderson– Hasselbach equation, 50% of each species is present when the pH is equal to the pK a . Therefore, depending on whether the compound is an acid or a base (Figure 2.11), an analyte is either 99% nonionized or ionized when the pH value is 2 units above or below the pK a . The purpose of applying master variable diagrams, distribution diagrams, and the Henderson–Hasselbach equation to ionizable organic chemicals is to better understand the species present at any solution pH. Organic compounds can be extracted from liquids in either the ionized or nonionized form. Generally, however, for ionizable compounds, it is best to adjust the solution pH to force the compound to exist in the ionized state or in the nonionized state as completely as possible. Less than optimal results may be obtained if the ionizable compound is extracted within the window of the pK a G 2 log units. When the pH is equal to the pK a , half of the compound is ionized and half of the compound is nonionized. Mixed modes of extraction are required to transfer the compound completely from one phase to another. The ‘‘2 units’’ rule of thumb is very important for an analyst to understand and apply when developing extraction protocol for acidic or basic compounds. More information concerning graphical methods for

57

liquid–liquid extraction

solving acid–base equilibrium problems can be found in Bard [1], Snoeyink and Jenkins [35], and Langmuir [36]. 2.1.4. Distribution of Hydrophobic Ionogenic Organic Compounds Some highly hydrophobic weak acids and bases exhibit substantial hydrophobicity even in the ionized state. For highly hydrophobic ionogenic organic compounds, not only is transfer of the neutral species between the aqueous phase and the immiscible phase important, but the transfer of the hydrophobic, ionized, organic species as free ions or ion pairs may also be significant [37]. Mathematically, this is described by refining the n-octanol/ water partition coe‰cient, as defined in equation (2.7), to reflect the pHdependent distribution between water (W) and n-octanol (O) of chemical X in both the ionized and nonionized forms. If chemical X is a weak acid, HA, the distribution ratio is DOW ðHA; A Þ ¼

½HAŠO; total ½HAŠW þ ½A ŠW

ð2:24Þ

where [HA]O; total is the sum of all neutral species, free ions, and ions paired with inorganic counterions that transfer to octanol [8,37]. For example, the ratio of the n-octanol/water distribution coe‰cient of the nondissociated species to that of the ionic species is nearly 10,000 for 3methyl-2-nitrophenol, but only about 1000 for pentachlorophenol because of the greater significance of the hydrophobicity of the ionized form of pentachlorophenol. The logarithm of the n-octanol/water distribution coe‰cient of pentachlorophenol as the phenolate is about 2 (determined at pH 12, and 0.1 M KCl), which indicates significant distribution of the ionized form into the n-octanol phase [8,37]. Extraction of such highly hydrophobic ionogenic organic compounds can result from mixed-mode mechanisms that incorporate both the hydrophobic and ionic character of the compound.

2.2. LIQUID–LIQUID EXTRACTION

In liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), phases A and B are both liquids. The two liquid phases must be immiscible. For that reason, LLE has also been referred to as immiscible solvent extraction. In practice, one phase is usually aqueous while the other phase is an organic solvent. An extraction can be accomplished if the analyte has favorable solubility in the organic solvent. Chemists have used organic solvents for extracting substances from water since the early nineteenth century [38].

58

principles of extraction Miscibility

Solvent manufacturer Honeywell Burdick & Jackson [39] defines solvents as miscible if the two components can be mixed together in all proportions without forming two separate phases. A solvent miscibility chart (Figure 2.12) is a useful aid for determining which solvent pairs are immiscible and would therefore be potential candidates for use in LLE. More solvent combinations are miscible than immiscible, and more solvents are immiscible with water than with any other solvent. Solvents miscible with water in all proportions include acetone, acetonitrile, dimethyl acetamide, N,Ndimethylformamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, 1,4-dioxane, ethyl alcohol, glyme, isopropyl alcohol, methanol, 2-methoxyethanol, N-methylpyrrolidone, npropyl alcohol, pyridine, tetrahydrofuran, and trifluoroacetic acid [40]. Density Another consideration when selecting an extraction solvent is its density [41]. Solvents that are more dense than water will form the lower layer of the pair when mixed together, while solvents that are less dense than water will form the upper layer or ‘‘float’’ on water. For example, ethyl ether has a density of 0.7133 g/mL at 20 C and would constitute the upper phase when combined with water, which has a density of 0.9982 g/mL at that temperature. On the other hand, the density of chloroform is 1.4892 at 20 C. Therefore, water would form the top layer in a water–chloroform solvent pair. Solubility Although solvents may form two visibly distinct phases when mixed together, they are often somewhat soluble in each other and will, in fact, become mutually saturated when mixed with each other. Data on the solubility of various solvents in water (Table 2.2) and on the solubility of water in other solvents (Table 2.3) should be consulted when selecting an extraction solvent pair. For example, 1.6% of the solvent dichloromethane (or methylene chloride) is soluble in water. Conversely, water is 0.24% soluble in dichloromethane. According to Table 2.3, when the phases are separated for recovery of the extracted analyte, the organic solvent layer will contain water. Similarly, according to Table 2.2, after extraction the depleted aqueous phase will be saturated with organic solvent and may pose a disposal problem. (Author’s note: I previously recounted [43] my LLE experience with disposal of extracted aqueous samples that were cleaned of pesticide residues but saturated with diethyl ether. Diethyl ether is 6.89% soluble in water at 20 C.)

59

liquid–liquid extraction Acetone

Miscible

Acetonitrile

Immiscible

n -Butyl Alcohol Chloroform Cyclohexane Dichloromethane N,N-Dimethylformamide Dimethyl Sulfoxide 1,4-Dioxane Ethyl Acetate Ethyl Alcohol Ethyl Ether Ethylene Dichloride Heptane Hexane Isooctane Isopropyl Alcohol Methanol Methyl t -Butyl Ether Methyl Ethyl Ketone Pentane Tetrahydrofuran Toluene Water o-Xylene Figure 2.12. Solvent miscibility chart. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 39. Copyright 6 2002 Honeywell Burdick & Jackson.) Available online at http://www.bandj.com/BJProduct/SolProperties/Miscibility.html

60

principles of extraction Table 2.2. Solubility in Water Solvent

Solubility (%)a

Isooctane Heptane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Cyclohexane Cyclopentane Hexane o-Dichlorobenzene 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane o-Xylene Pentane Chlorobenzene Toluene n-Butyl chloride Methyl isoamyl ketone n-Butyl acetate Ethylene dichloride Chloroform Dichloromethane Methyl isobutyl ketone Methyl t-butyl ether Triethylamine Methyl n-propyl ketone Ethyl ether n-Butyl alcohol Isobutyl alcohol Ethyl acetate Propylene carbonate Methyl ethyl ketone

0.0002 (25 C) 0.0003 (25 C) 0.0025 0.006 (25 C) 0.01 0.014 0.016 (25 C) 0.017 (25 C) 0.018 (25 C) 0.04 0.05 0.052 (25 C) 0.11 0.54 0.68 0.81 0.815 1.60 1.7 4.8 5.5 5.95 6.89 7.81 8.5 8.7 17.5 (25 C) 24.0

Source: Reprinted with permission from Ref. 40. Copyright 6 (2002) Honeywell Burdick & Jackson. a Solvents are arranged in order of increasing solubility in water, the maximum weight percent (w/w) of each solvent that can be dissolved in water (at 20 C unless otherwise indicated).

2.2.1. Recovery As defined earlier, KD ¼

½XŠB ½XŠA

ð2:2Þ

liquid–liquid extraction

61

Table 2.3. Solubility of Water in Each Solvent Solvent

Solubility (%)a

Isooctane Pentane Cyclohexane Cyclopentane Heptane Hexane 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Toluene Chlorobenzene Chloroform n-Butyl chloride Ethylene dichloride Dichloromethane o-Dichlorobenzene n-Butyl acetate Ethyl ether Methyl isoamyl ketone Methyl t-butyl ether Methyl isobutyl ketone Ethyl acetate Methyl n-propyl ketone Triethylamine Propylene carbonate Methyl ethyl ketone Isobutyl alcohol n-Butyl alcohol

0.006 0.009 0.01 0.01 0.01 (25 C) 0.01 0.011 (25 C) 0.020 0.033 (25 C) 0.04 0.056 0.08 0.15 0.24 0.31 (25 C) 1.2 1.26 1.3 1.5 1.9 (25 C) 3.3 3.3 4.6 8.3 (25 C) 10.0 16.4 20.07

Source: Reprinted with permission from Ref. 42. Copyright 6 (2002) Honeywell Burdick & Jackson. a Solvents are arranged in order of increasing solubility of water in each solvent, the maximum weight percent (w/w) of water that can be dissolved in the solvent (at 20 C unless otherwise indicated).

Analytes distribute themselves between aqueous and organic layers according to the Nernst distribution law, where the distribution coe‰cient, KD , is equal to the analyte ratio in each phase at equilibrium. The analyte distributes itself between the two immiscible liquids according to the relative solubility in each solvent [1,38,44,45]. To determine the e¤ect of the distribution coe‰cient on an extraction, consider the following example.

62

principles of extraction Example

A 1-L aqueous sample containing 100 parts per billion (ppb) of a compound having a molecular weight of 250 g/mol is extracted once with 150 mL of organic extracting solvent. Assume that the KD value is 5. Given this information, the molarity of the original sample is 4:0  10 10 M. Calculate the percent of the analyte extracted into the organic extracting solvent at equilibrium. Step 1. Calculate the moles of analyte in the original sample. moles in original sample ¼ molarity of sample ðin mol=LÞ  volume extracted ðin LÞ Therefore, moles in original sample ¼ 4:0  10

10

M  1 L ¼ 4:0  10

10

mol ð2:25Þ

Step 2. Calculate the moles of analyte left in the aqueous phase after extraction. KD ¼

ðmoles in original sample moles left in water after extractionÞ=extraction solvent volume ðin LÞ moles left in water after extraction=volume of original sample ðin LÞ

ð2:26Þ

Therefore, moles in original sample moles left in water ¼ after extraction f½KD  extraction solvent volume ðin Lފ=volume of original sample ðin LÞg þ 1

such that, moles left in water after extraction ¼

4:0  10 10 mol ¼ 2:2857  10 ½ð5  0:150 LÞ=1 LŠ þ 1

10

mol

Step 3. Calculate the moles of analyte extracted into layer B (i.e., the extracting solvent) at equilibrium. moles of analyte extracted into organic solvent ¼ moles of analyte in original sample ¼ 4:0  10

10

mol

2:2857  10

10

moles left in water after extraction

mol ¼ 1:7143  10

10

mol

ð2:27Þ

liquid–liquid extraction

63

Step 4. Calculate the percent of analyte extracted into the organic solvent at equilibrium. The recovery factor, RX , is the fraction of the analyte extracted divided by the total concentration of the analyte, multiplied by 100 to give the percentage recovery: % RX ¼ percent of analyte extracted into organic solvent ¼

moles of analyte extracted into organic solvent  100 moles of analyte in original sample

¼

1:7143  10 10 mol  100 ¼ 42:857% 4:0  10 10 mol

ð2:28Þ

If the problem is reworked such that the volume of the extracting solvent is 50 mL instead of 150 mL, the percent of analyte extracted into the organic solvent, calculated by repeating steps 1 through 4, is determined to be only 20% (Table 2.4) as compared to 42.857% if an extracting solvent of 150 mL is used. If after separating the phases, the aqueous sample is extracted with a second sequential extraction volume of 50 mL, again 20% of what remained available for extraction will be removed. However, that represents only 16% additional recovery, or a cumulative extraction of 36% after two sequential extractions (i.e., 2  50 mL). If after separating the phases, the aqueous sample is extracted with a third sequential extraction volume of 50 mL, again 20% of what remained available for extraction will be removed. That represents only 12.8% of additional recovery or a cumulative extraction of 48.8% after three sequential extractions (i.e., 3  50 mL). Analogous to a hapless frog that jumps halfway out of a well each time it jumps, never to escape the well, LLE recovery is an equilibrium procedure in which exhaustive extraction is driven by the principle of repeated extractions. The percent recovery obtained with a single extraction of 150 mL of organic solvent is compared to that for three sequential extractions of 50 mL each for KD values of 500, 250, 100, 50, and 5 (Table 2.4). In sequential extractions, the same percent recovery is extracted each time (i.e., the frog jumps the same percentage of the distance out of the well each time). That is, at a KD value of 500, 96.154% is extracted from the original sample using an organic solvent volume of 50 mL; 96.154% of the analyte remaining in solution after the first extraction is removed during the second sequential extraction by 50 mL; and 96.154% of the analyte remaining in solution after the second extraction is removed during the third sequential extraction by 50 mL. When KD is equal to 500, the first extraction using 50 mL recovers 96.154% of the original analyte; the second sequential extraction produces

64

98.684 97.403 93.750 88.235 42.857

500 250 100 50 5 96.154 92.593 83.333 71.429 20.000

Repeat Percent Extracted

Percent Extracted

Percent Extracted

Kd

96.154 92.593 83.333 71.429 20.000

1  50 mL

99.851 99.451 97.223 91.839 36.000

Cumulative Extraction

Additional Recovery 3.697 6.859 13.890 20.411 16.000

2  50 mL

1  50 mL

Second Sequential Extraction

Single Extraction 1  50 mL

Single Extraction 1  150 mL

0.142 0.508 2.315 5.832 12.800

99.993 99.959 99.538 97.671 48.800

Cumulative Extraction

Additional Recovery

Repeat Percent Extracted 96.154 92.593 83.333 71.429 20.000

3  50 mL

1  50 mL

1  50 mL

Third Sequential Extraction

Table 2.4. Distribution Coe‰cient E¤ects on Single and Repeated Extractions

liquid–liquid extraction

65

additional recovery of 3.697% of the original analyte; and the third sequential extraction produces further recovery of 0.142% of the original analyte, for a cumulative recovery after three sequential extractions (3  50 mL) of 99.993%. The cumulative recovery after three extractions of 50 mL each is greater than that calculated for recovery from a single extraction of 150 mL of organic solvent (i.e., 98.684%). The e¤ect of concentration on recovery by single or repeated extractions can be examined. Instead of assuming a concentration of 4:0  10 10 M for the aqueous sample to be extracted as stated in the original problem, the values in Table 2.4 can be recalculated after substitution with a concentration of 0.01 M. If the same four steps outlined previously are followed, it can be demonstrated that the recovery values in Table 2.4 are identical regardless of concentration. The most desirable analytical protocols are independent of sample concentration in the range of samples to be analyzed. The operation conducted in steps 1 through 4 above can be summarized by the following equation such that the recovery factor of analyte X, expressed as a percent, is % RX ¼

100KD KD þ ðVO =VE Þ

ð2:29Þ

where VO is the volume of the original sample and VE is the extraction solvent volume. (Note that the recovery factor is independent of sample concentration.) The recovery factor can also be expressed in the equivalent form     KD ðVE =VO Þ KD ðV Þ ¼ 100 ð2:30Þ % RX ¼ 100 1 þ KD ðVE =VO Þ 1 þ KD ðV Þ where V ¼ VE =VO is known as the phase ratio. Therefore, applying equation (2.29) to the previous example in which a 1-L aqueous sample containing 100 ppb of a compound having a molecular weight of 250 g/mol is extracted once with 150 mL of organic extracting solvent, and assuming that KD is 5, substitution yields. RX ¼

100  5 ¼ 42:857% 5 þ ð1:0 L=0:150 LÞ

If the analyte is partially dissociated in solution and exists as the neutral species, free ions, and ions paired with counterions, the distribution ratio, D, analogous to equation (2.24), would be D¼

concentration of X in all chemical forms in the organic phase concentration of X in all chemical forms in the aqueous phase

ð2:31Þ

66

principles of extraction

In this instance, the value for D would be substituted for KD in equation (2.29). The formula for expressing repeated extractions is   n  1 % RX ¼ 1  100 ð2:32Þ 1 þ KD ðVE =VO Þ Applying equation (2.32) to the previous calculation having three successive multiple extractions where KD ¼ 5, VE ¼ 50 mL, VO ¼ 1 L, and n ¼ 3, the cumulative recovery is calculated to be 48.8% (Table 2.4). Repeated extractions may be required to recover the analyte su‰ciently from the aqueous phase. Neutral compounds can have substantial values of KD . However, organic compounds that form hydrogen bonds with water, are partially soluble in water, or are ionogenic (weak acid or bases) may have lower distribution coe‰cients and/or pH-dependent distribution coe‰cients. Additionally, the sample matrix itself (i.e., blood, urine, or wastewater) may contain impurities that shift the value of the distribution coe‰cient relative to that observed in purified water. Investigation of the principle of repeated extractions demonstrates that:  The net amount of analyte extracted depends on the value of the distribution coe‰cient.  The net amount of analyte extracted depends on the ratio of the volumes of the two phases used.  More analyte is extracted with multiple portions of extracting solvent than with a single portion of an equivalent volume of the extracting phase.  Recovery is independent of the concentration of the original aqueous sample. 2.2.2. Methodology The LLE process can be accomplished by shaking the aqueous and organic phases together in a separatory funnel (Figure 2.13a). Following mixing, the layers are allowed to separate. Flow from the bottom of the separatory funnel is controlled by a glass or Teflon stopcock and the top of the separatory funnel is sealed with a stopper. The stopper and stopcock must fit tightly and be leakproof. Commonly, separatory funnels are globe, pear, or cylindrically shaped. They may be shaken mechanically, but are often shaken manually. With the stopcock closed, both phases are added to the separatory funnel. The stopper is added, and the funnel is inverted without shaking. The stop-

liquid–liquid extraction

(a)

(b)

67

Figure 2.13. Liquid–liquid extraction apparatus: (a) separatory funnel and (b) evaporative Kuderna–Danish sample concentrator. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 46. Copyright 6 2002 Kimble/Kontes.)

cock is opened immediately to relieve excess pressure. When the funnel is inverted, the stem should be pointed away from yourself and others. The funnel should be held securely with the bulb of the separatory funnel in the palm of one hand, while the index finger of the same hand is placed over the stopper to prevent it from being blown from the funnel by pressure buildup during shaking. The other hand should be positioned to hold the stopcock end of the separatory funnel, and for opening and closing the stopcock. The separatory funnel should be gently shaken for a few seconds, and frequently inverted and vented through the stopcock. When pressure builds up less rapidly in the separatory funnel, the solvents should be shaken more vigorously for a longer period of time while venting the stopcock occasionally. The separatory funnel should be supported in an upright position in an iron ring padded with tubing to protect against breakage. When the layers are completely separated (facilitated by removing the stopper), the lower layer should be drawn o¤ through the stopcock, and the upper layer should be removed through the top of the separatory funnel. The relative position of each layer depends on the relative densities of the two immiscible phases. During an extraction process, all layers should be saved until the desired analyte is isolated. A given solvent layer can easily be determined to be aqueous or organic by testing the solubility of a few drops in water.

68

principles of extraction

Once the analyte has been extracted into phase B, it is usually desirable to reduce the volume of the extracting solvent. This can be accomplished with specialized glassware such as a Kuderna–Danish sample concentrator (Figure 2.13b), which is widely used for concentrating semivolatile compounds dissolved in volatile solvents. The concentrator consists of three primary components held together by hooks and/or clamps: a central flask with sufficient capacity to hold the extracting solvent, a tapered receiving vessel to contain the concentrated extract, and a distilling–condensing column that allows the solvent vapor to pass while retaining the analyte. The apparatus should be placed over a vigorously boiling water bath to bathe the central flask in steam. The solvent should then be allowed to escape into a hood or recovered via an additional solvent recovery system. Alternatively, a mechanical rotary evaporator may be used to evaporate excess extracting solvent, or other evaporating units that evaporate solvent with an inert gas should be used. Performing LLE of analytes from drinking water is relatively straightforward. However, if your ‘‘aqueous’’ sample is blood, urine, or wastewater, the extraction process can become more tedious. Quite often in such samples, a scum forms at the layer interface, due to the presence of nonsoluble debris and the formation of emulsions. Analysts overcome this di‰culty using techniques such as adding salts, chilling the sample, or centrifugation. Applying a continuous LLE technique can be useful also. Continuous LLE is a variant of the extraction process that is particularly applicable when the distribution coe‰cient of the analyte between phases A and B is low. Additionally, the apparatus for conducting continuous LLE (Figures 2.14 and 2.15) automates the process somewhat. The analyst is freed from manually shaking the phases in a separatory funnel to e¤ect a separation allowing multiple extractions to be performed simultaneously. Since the phases are not shaken to mix them, this procedure also helps avoid the formation of emulsions. The apparatus can be assembled to perform extraction alone (Figure 2.14), or extraction and concentration (Figure 2.15). The extractor performs on the principle that organic solvent cycles continuously through the aqueous phase, due to constant vaporization and condensation of the extracting solvent. Continuous LLE apparatus designed for heavier-than-water or lighter-than-water extracting solvents is available. 2.2.3. Procedures A general extraction scheme (Figure 2.16) can be devised to extract semivolatile organics from aqueous solution such that important categories of organic compounds (i.e., bases, weak acids, strong acids, and neutrals) are fractionated from each other and isolated in an organic solvent. Many

liquid–liquid extraction

69

Figure 2.14. Continuous liquid–liquid extraction apparatus designed for samples where the extracting solvent is heavier than water. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 46. Copyright 6 2002 Kimble/Kontes.)

pharmaceuticals and pesticides are ionogenic or neutral compounds, and could be recovered by this procedure. Such a scheme is based on pH control of the aqueous sample. The KD value of a base in acidic conditions is low as is the KD value of an acid in basic conditions, because in each instance the compound would be ionized. In these situations, the ionized base or acid would therefore tend to remain in the aqueous solution when mixed with an organic extracting solvent. Neutral compounds tend to transfer to the organic extracting phase regardless of solution pH. If an aqueous sample hypothetically containing inorganics and organics, including bases, strong acids, weak acids, and neutrals, is adjusted to pH 2 and extracted with an organic solvent (Figure 2.16, step 1), a separation in which the inorganics and bases will remain in the aqueous phase is e¤ected. The inorganics prefer the aqueous phase, due to charge separation in ionic bonds, and at pH 2, the ionogenic organic bases will be positively charged and thereby prefer the aqueous phase. The neutral, strongly acidic, and weakly acidic organic compounds will have higher KD values under these conditions and will prefer to transfer to the organic phase from the aqueous phase. To isolate the organic bases from inorganic compounds and to recover the organic bases in an organic solvent, the acidified aqueous solution from

70

principles of extraction

Figure 2.15. Continuous liquid–liquid extraction apparatus designed for samples where the extracting solvent is heavier than water in which both extraction and concentration are performed with the same apparatus. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 46. Copyright 6 2002 Kimble/Kontes.)

which the neutral and acidic compounds were removed is adjusted to pH 10 and extracted with an organic solvent (Figure 2.16, step 2). At pH 10, the KD values of nonionized organic bases should be favorable for extraction into an organic solvent, while inorganic compounds preferentially remain in the aqueous solution. To separate strongly acidic organic compounds from weakly acidic and neutral compounds, the organic phase containing all three components is mixed with a sodium bicarbonate (pH 8.5) solution (Figure 2.16, step 3). This seeming reversal of the process, that is, extracting compounds back into an aqueous phase from the organic phase, is called washing, back-extraction, or retro-extraction. Under these pH conditions, the organic phase retains the nonionized weakly acidic and neutral compounds, while ionized strong acids transfer into the aqueous washing solution. The organic solvent phase containing only weakly acidic and neutral compounds is sequentially back-extracted with an aqueous (pH 10) solution of sodium hydroxide (Figure 2.16, step 4). Neutral compounds remain in the organic solvent phase, while weak organic acids, ionized at this pH, will be extracted into the aqueous phase.

71

liquid–liquid extraction Step 1: Adjust aqueous sample to pH2. Extract with organic solvent. Aqueous acidic phase 1a Aqueous solution pH 2 pH2

Contains: inorganics, bases, strong acids, weak acids, neutrals

Contains: inorganics, bases Organic phase

1b

Contains: strong acids, weak acids, neutrals

Step 2: Adjust aqueous acidic phase, 1a, to pH 10. Extract with organic solvent. Aqueous basic phase Aqueous acidic phase

1a pH10

Contains: inorganics, bases

2a

Contains: inorganics Organic phase

2b

Contains: bases

Step 3: Extract organic phase, 1b, with bicarbonate solution (pH 8.5). Aqueous basic phase Organic phase Contains: strong acids, weak acids, neutrals

1b NaHCO3 solution

3a

Contains: strong acids Organic phase

3b

Contains: weak acids, neutrals

Figure 2.16. General extraction scheme. Hatched boxes represent isolation of organic compound categories in an organic phase.

The aqueous basic phase containing strong acids (Figure 2.16, step 5) and the aqueous basic phase containing weak acids (Figure 2.16, step 6) are each separately adjusted to pH 2 and extracted with organic solvent. Two organic solutions result: one containing recovered strong organic acids and the other containing weak organic acids.

72

principles of extraction Step 4: Extract organic phase, 3b, with hydroxide solution (pH 10). Aqueous basic phase 4a Organic phase Contains: weak acids, neutrals

3b NaOH solution

Contains: weak acids Organic phase

4b

Contains: neutrals

Step 5: Adjust aqueous basic phase, 3a, to pH 2. Extract with organic solvent. Aqueous acidic phase 5a

Aqueous basic phase 3a

Analyte-free

pH 2

Contains: strong acids

Organic phase

5b

Contains: strong acids

Step 6: Adjust aqueous basic phase, 4a, to pH 2. Extract with organic solvent.

Aqueous basic phase Contains: weak acids

Aqueous acidic phase 6a

4a

Analyte-free

pH 2

Organic phase

6b

Contains: weak acids Figure 2.16. (Continued)

2.2.4. Recent Advances in Techniques Historically, analysts performing LLE have experienced di‰culties such as exposure to large volumes of organic solvents, formation of emulsions, and generation of mountains of dirty, expensive glassware. To address these problems, other sample preparation techniques, such as solid-phase extraction (SPE) and solid-phase microextraction (SPME), have experienced increased development and implementation during the previous two decades. However, advances in microfluidics amenable to automation are fueling a resurgence of LLE applications while overcoming some of the inherent difficulties associated with them.

73

liquid–liquid extraction

Fujiwara et al. [47] devised instrumentation for online, continuous ionpair formation and solvent extraction, phase separation, and detection. The procedure was applied to the determination of atropine in synthetic urine, and of atropine and scopolamine in standard pharmaceuticals. Aqueous sample solution was pumped at a flow rate of 5 mL/min. The organic extracting solvent, dichloromethane, was pumped at a flow rate of 2 mL/ min and mixed with the aqueous sample stream to produce an aqueous-toorganic volume ratio of 2.5. The mixture was passed through an extraction coil composed of a 3-m PTFE tube [0.5 mm inside diameter (ID)] where associated ion pairs were transferred from the aqueous into the organic phase. The phases were separated using a Teflon membrane. The organic phase transversed the phase-separating membrane and passed onward in the stream to the detector while the aqueous stream was wasted. Tokeshi et al. [48] performed an ion-pair solvent extraction successfully on a microchannel-fabricated quartz glass chip. An aqueous Fe complex (Fe– 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthrolinedisulfonic acid) and a chloroform solution of capriquat (tri-n-octylmethylammonium chloride) were introduced separately into a microchannel (250 mm) to form a parallel two-phase laminar flow producing a liquid–liquid aqueous–organic interface (Figure 2.17). The authors noted that in the microchannel, the aqueous–organic interface did not attain the upper–lower arrangement produced by di¤erences in specific gravity normally observed in LLE. In the microchannel environment, surface tension and frictional forces are stronger than specific gravity, resulting in an interface that is side by side and parallel to the sidewalls of the microchannel. The ion-pair product extracted from aqueous solution into Aqueous phase Fe-complex Organic phase

Microsyringe pump Drain

Capillary tube Capillary tube Figure 2.17. Schematic diagram of microextraction system on a glass chip. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 48. Copyright 6 2000 American Chemical Society.)

74

Extraction plate

principles of extraction

Organic solvent: methyl ethyl ketone Diatomaceous earth particle Aqueous plasma layer

Analyte Collection plate

Solid Support

Plasma Layer Analyte

Organic Solvent Organic Solvent

Figure 2.18. Schematic representation of automated liquid–liquid extraction. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 50. Copyright 6 2001 American Chemical Society.)

chloroform within 45 seconds when the flow was very slow or stopped, corresponding with molecular di¤usion time. The extraction system required no mechanical stirring, mixing, or shaking. Solid-supported LLE is a new approach reported by Peng et al. [49,50]. They exploited the e‰ciency of 96-channel, programmable, robotic liquidhandling workstation technology to automate methodology for this LLE variation. A LLE plate was prepared by adding inert diatomaceous earth particles to a 96-well plate with hydrophobic GF/C glass fiber bottom filters. Samples and solvents were added to the plate sequentially. LLE occurred in the interface between the two liquid phases and on the surface of individual particles in each well (Figure 2.18). The organic phase extracts were eluted under gentle vacuum into a 96-well collection plate. The approach was used for initial purification of combinatorial library samples and for quantitative analysis of carboxylic acid–based matrix metalloprotease inhibitor compounds in rat plasma.

2.3. LIQUID–SOLID EXTRACTION

When a liquid is extracted by a solid, phase A of the Nernst distribution law [equation (2.2)] refers to the liquid sample, and phase B, the extracting phase, represents the solid (or solid-supported liquid) phase: KD ¼

½XŠB ½XŠA

ð2:2Þ

Classically, batch-mode liquid–solid extractions (LSEs), were used to con-

liquid–solid extraction

75

centrate semivolatile organic compounds from liquids into the solid phase. The liquid sample was placed in contact with the flowable, bulk solid extracting phase, an equilibrium between the two phases was allowed to occur, followed by physical separation (by decanting or filtering) of the solid and liquid phases. During the past quarter century, di¤erent approaches to solidphase extractions of semivolatile organic compounds have emerged, including three described here: solid-phase extraction (SPE), solid-phase microextraction (SPME), and stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE). Like LLE, SPE is designed to be a total, or exhaustive, extraction procedure for extracting the analyte completely from the entire sample volume via the sorbent. Unlike LLE, SPE is a nonequilibrium or pseudoequilibrium procedure. Unlike SPE, SPME is an equilibrium procedure that is not intended to be an exhaustive extraction procedure. SPME is an analytical technique in its own right that is inherently di¤erent from SPE or LLE. SBSE is physically a scaled-up version of SPME, but in principle it is more closely related to LLE (as it has been applied to date), in that it is an equilibrium partitioning procedure that unlike SPME more easily presents the opportunity to achieve exhaustive extraction. Each variation on the theme of liquid–solid extraction is an important addition to the analyst’s arsenal of procedures for recovering semivolatile organics from liquids. 2.3.1. Sorption To understand any of the solid-phase extraction techniques discussed in this chapter, it is first necessary to understand the physical–chemical processes of sorption. Schwarzenbach et al. [8] make the distinction between absorption (with a ‘‘b’’) meaning into a three-dimensional matrix, like water uptake in a sponge, and adsorption (with a ‘‘d’’) as meaning onto a two-dimensional surface (Figure 2.19). Absorption, also referred to as partitioning, occurs when analytes pass into the bulk of the extracting phase and are retained. Adsorption is the attraction of an analyte to a solid that results in accumulation of the analyte’s concentration at porous surfaces of the solid. Absorption results from weaker interactive forces than adsorption. Because adsorption and/or absorption processes are sometimes di‰cult to distinguish experimentally [52] and often occur simultaneously, the general term sorption will be used here when referring to these processes. The term sorbent will refer to the solid extracting phase, including certain solid-supported liquid phases. To predict and optimize extraction, it is important for the analyst to be aware of the nature of the sorbent used. Although di¤erent processes may dominate in di¤erent situations, it can be assumed that multiple steps occur during sorption of an organic compound from liquids ‘‘into’’ or ‘‘onto’’ a solid phase. Any of the steps may

76

principles of extraction

Absorption

Adsorption (large pores)

Adsorption (small pores)

Figure 2.19. Schematic representation of absorptive versus adsorptive extraction and adsorption in small versus large pores. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 51. Copyright 6 2000 Elsevier Science.)

become a rate-limiting process in controlling sorption of an analyte. The analyte may interact with a solid-phase sorbent in at least four ways: 1. Through absorption, the analyte may interact with the sorbent by penetrating its three-dimensional structure, similar to water being absorbed by a sponge. Three-dimensional penetration into the sorbent is a particularly dominating process for solid-supported liquid phases. In the absorption process, analytes do not compete for sites; therefore, absorbents can have a high capacity for the analyte. 2. The analyte may interact two-dimensionally with the sorbent surface through adsorption due to intermolecular forces such as van der Waals or dipole–dipole interactions [53]. Surface interactions may result in displacement of water or other solvent molecules by the analyte. In the adsorption process, analytes may compete for sites; therefore, adsorbents have limited capacity. Three steps occur during the adsorption process on porous sorbents: film di¤usion (when the analyte passes through a surface film to the solid-phase surface), pore di¤usion (when the analyte passes through the pores of the solid-phase), and adsorptive reaction (when the analyte binds, associates, or interacts with the sorbent surface) [54]. 3. If the compound is ionogenic (or ionizable) in aqueous solution (as discussed earlier), there may be an electrostatic attraction between the

liquid–solid extraction

77

Macropore Region >500 Angstrom

Mesopore Region 20-500 Angstrom

Micropore Region 0-20 Angstrom N2 Adsorption Figure 2.20. Micro-, macro-, and mesopores in a porous sorbent. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 56. Copyright 6 1996 Barnebey Sutcli¤e Corporation.)

analyte and charged sites on the sorbent surface. Sorbents specifically designed to exploit these types of ionic interactions are referred to as ion-exchange (either anion- or cation-exchange) sorbents. 4. Finally, it is possible that the analyte and the sorbent may be chemically reactive toward each other such that the analyte becomes covalently bonded to the solid-phase sorbent. This type of sorption is generally detrimental to analytical recovery and may lead to slow or reduced recovery, also termed biphasic desorption. All of these interactions have the potential of operating simultaneously during sorption [8,54,55]. For porous sorbents, most of the surface area is not on the outside of the particle but on the inside pores of the sorbent (Figure 2.20) in complex, interconnected networks of micropores (diameters smaller than 2 nm), mesopores (2 to 50 nm), also known as transitional pores, and macropores (greater than 50 nm) [57]. Most of the surface area is derived from the small-diameter micropores and the medium-diameter transitional pores [56]. Porous sorbents vary in pore size, shape, and tortuosity [58] and are characterized by properties such as particle diameter, pore diameter, pore volume, surface areas, and particle-size distribution. Sorption tendency is dependent on the characters of the sorbent, the liquid sample (i.e., solvent) matrix, and the analyte. Much of the driving force for extracting semivolatile organics from liquids onto a solid sorbent results from the favorable energy gains achieved when transferring between phases.

78

principles of extraction

For some of the sorbents discussed in this section on liquid–solid extraction, the solid-supported liquid sorbent phase performing the extraction may appear to the naked eye to be a solid when it is actually a liquid. The chromatographic method of employing two immiscible liquid phases, one of which is supported on a solid phase, was introduced by Martin and Synge in 1941 [59]. The liquid sorbent phase was mechanically added to the solid support material, which can lead to problems with bleeding, or stripping, of the liquid phase from the supporting solid material. Therefore, in the 1960s, covalently bonded phases were developed that overcame some of these problems by actually anchoring the liquid phase to the solid support. When the liquid extracting phase merely coats a solid support instead of bonding to the surface, it continues to behave primarily like a liquid; that is, the solid-supported liquid phase still has three-dimensional freedom of motion and the sorptive behavior observed is dominated by absorption processes. When the liquid extracting phase is covalently bonded to the surface, it no longer acts primarily like a bulk liquid, since there is freedom of movement in two dimensions only; translational and rotational movement are restricted; and retention on this type of phase can no longer be described solely by absorption processes. Retention on a liquid phase covalently bonded to a porous solid support does not result from a pure absorption or a pure adsorption mechanism. Is analyte recovery using a solid-supported liquid phase classified as LLE or LSE? In Section 2.2.4, a process described as solid-supported LLE [49,50] was discussed in which the liquid sorbent phase was distributed on the surfaces of individual particles (Figure 2.18). The solid-supported phases in the LSE section have been arbitrarily distinguished as liquids mechanically supported on solid devices, such as the liquid-coated fused silica fibers used for SPME or the liquid-coated glass sheath of a stirring bar in used SBSE, rather than liquids supported on finely divided solid particles.

2.4. SOLID-PHASE EXTRACTION

The historical development of solid-phase extraction (SPE) has been traced by various authors [60,61]. After a long latency period (from biblical times to 1977) when the theoretical ‘‘science’’ of SPE was known but not frequently practiced, technological breakthroughs in sorbents and devices fueled the growth of SPE use that continues today. The modern era of SPE, which resulted in today’s exponential growth in applications of this technique, began in 1977 when the Waters Corporation introduced commercially available, prepackaged disposable cartridges/columns containing bonded silica sorbents. The term solid-phase extraction was coined in 1982 by employees of the J.T. Baker Chemical Company [62–65].

solid-phase extraction

79

The most commonly cited benefits of SPE that led to early advances relative to LLE are reduced analysis time, reduced cost, and reduced labor (because SPE is faster and requires less manipulation); reduced organic solvent consumption and disposal [66–68], which results in reduced analyst exposure to organic solvents; and reduced potential for formation of emulsions [43]. The potential for automation of SPE increased productivity because multiple simultaneous extractions can be accomplished [43]. SPE provides higher concentration factors (i.e., KD ) than LLE [68] and can be used to store analytes in a sorbed state or as a vehicle for chemical derivatization [69]. SPE is a multistaged separation technique providing greater opportunity for selective isolation than LLE [66,68,70,71], such as fractionation of the sample into di¤erent compounds or groups of compounds [69]. The use of SPE for all of these objectives is being exploited by today’s SPE researchers. Solid-phase extraction refers to the nonequilibrium, exhaustive removal of chemical constituents from a flowing liquid sample via retention on a contained solid sorbent and subsequent recovery of selected constituents by elution from the sorbent [72]. The introduction of sorbents exhibiting a very strong a‰nity for accumulating semivolatile organic compounds from water was the primary advance in the 1970s that propelled the technique into widespread use. The a‰nity, which was strong enough to be analytically useful from sorbents that were inexpensive enough to be economically feasible, was useful in both pharmaceutical and environmental applications. Mathematically, a strong a‰nity equates to a large KD value in equation (2.2) because the concentration in the sorbent extracting phase, [X]B , is large relative to the sample extracted. For this reason, SPE is sometimes referred to as digital chromatography, indicating the all-or-nothing extremes in the sorptive nature of these sorbents, caused by the strong attraction for the analyte by the sorbent. SPE drives liquid chromatographic mechanisms to their extreme, such that KD approaches infinity, representing total accumulation of the analyte during retention, and KD approaches zero during subsequent elution or release of the analyte. Some analysts mistakenly refer to SPE sorbents as ‘‘filters’’ and the SPE process as ‘‘filtration’’ because of the porous character of many of the sorbents used for SPE. The molecules of the analyte that exist in true homogeneous solution in the sample are not filtered; they become associated with the solid phase through sorption. However, sorbent particles do act as depth filters toward particulate matter that is not in true homogeneous solution in the sample. Particulate matter can become lodged in the interstitial spaces between the sorbent particles or in the intraparticulate void volume, or pore space, within sorbent particles. The filtering of particulate matter is generally detrimental to the analysis and can lead to plugging of the extraction sorbent or channeling the flow through the sorbent. Fritz [73] summarizes that the

80

principles of extraction

severity of a plugging problem in SPE depends on (1) the concentration, type, and size of the particulates in the sample; (2) the pore size of the sorbent; and (3) the surface area of the sorbent bed. While particulate matter can cause plugging and channeling of the sorbent in SPE as described above, analysts performing SPE extraction and other analytical procedures must also be concerned with the potential for the analyte’s association with particulate and colloidal matter contamination in the sample. Complex equilibria govern partitioning of organic analytes among the solution phase, colloidal material, and suspended particulate matter. Depending on the chemical nature of the analyte and the contamination, some of the analyte molecules can become sorbed to the contaminating particulate and/or colloidal matter in the sample [74]. Analytes can adhere to biological particulates such as cellular debris or bind to colloidal proteins. Similarly, analytes can adhere to environmental particulates or associate with colloidal humic substances. If the sample is not filtered, particulates can partially or entirely elute from the sorbent, leading to both a dissolved and particulate result when the sample is analyzed [75]. In addition to concern about the potential for suspended solids in the water sample plugging the SPE sorbent and analytes of interest adsorbing onto particulates, loss of the analyte may occur if small particulates pass through the pores of the sorbent bed [73]. To avoid these problems and ensure consistent results, sample particulate matter should be removed by filtration prior to SPE analysis [43]. If measuring the degree to which the analyte is bound to contaminants in the solution or, conversely, the degree to which the analyte is unassociated, or in true solution is important, the sample should be filtered prior to analysis by SPE or LLE. Glass-fiber filters, which have no organic binders, should be inert toward the analyte of interest while trapping particulate matter [43]. Particles with a diameter of 1 mm or greater tend to settle out of solution by gravity. Nominal filter sizes of 0.7, 0.45, or 0.22 mm are commonly reported in literature in conjunction with preparation of a sample for SPE. An appropriate level of filtration should be determined for the particular sample matrix being analyzed and used consistently prior to SPE analysis. The material retained on the filter may be analyzed separately to determine the level of bound analyte. The analyst must carefully assess whether rinsing the filter with water or an organic solvent and recombining the rinsings with the filtered sample meet the objectives sought and are appropriate for the given analysis. Prefiltering samples prior to SPE in a standardized manner using glassfiber filters having no organic binders and testing the analytes of interest to establish that they are not adsorbed on the filter selected is recommended [43]. Alternatively, Simpson and Wynne [76] present the counter viewpoint

solid-phase extraction

81

that sample filtration is not always appropriate when the analyte adheres to biological or environmental particulates. They suggest that SPE devices more tolerent to the buildup of matrix solids, such as in-line filters, highflow frits, or large-particle-size beds, should be tested. The analyst must be knowledgeable about the particulate/colloidal matter present in the sample matrix in order to consider these technical decisions about sample processing. 2.4.1. Sorbents in SPE Appropriate SPE sorbent selection is critical to obtaining e‰cient SPE recovery of semivolatile organics from liquids. Henry [58] notes that an SPE sorbent ‘‘must be able to sorb rapidly and reproducibly, defined quantities of sample components of interest.’’ Fritz [73] states that ‘‘successful SPE has two major requirements: (1) a high, reproducible percentage of the analytical solutes must be taken up by the solid extractant; and (2) the solutes must then be easily and completely eluted from the solid particles.’’ The sorption process must be reversible. In addition to reversible sorption, SPE sorbents should be porous with large surface areas, be free of leachable impurities, exhibit stability toward the sample matrix and the elution solvents, and have good surface contact with the sample solution [68,73]. Obviously, knowledge of the chemistry and character of commonly used SPE sorbents is important to achieving successful extractions. Liska [60] describes developments from the late 1960s until the early 1980s as the ‘‘age of searching’’ for a universal SPE sorbent that culminated in the introduction of polymeric materials and bonded silicas. These sorbents have proven useful for a wide variety of applications. However, the realization that no single optimal sorbent for all purposes exists prompts current e¤orts to optimize a sorbent for a particular application [60], that is, for a specific analyte in a specific matrix. Poole et al. [77] categorize the SPE sorbents available today as either general purpose, class specific, or compound specific. This discussion covers polar, polymeric, bonded silica, and graphitized carbon sorbents of general applicability as well as functionalized polymeric resins, ion-exchange sorbents, controlled-access sorbents, immunoa‰nity sorbents, and molecularly imprinted polymers designed for more specific purposes. Polar Sorbents The earliest applications of chromatography, a term coined by Tswett in 1906, used polar sorbents to separate analytes dissolved in nonpolar solvents. Using light petroleum as the nonpolar mobile phase, Tswett separated

82

principles of extraction

a colored extract from leaves using column chromatography on a polar calcium carbonate column [78,79]. The alternate system, in which the sorbent is nonpolar while a polar solvent is used, was not used in chromatography until the late 1940s to early 1950s [80–83]. Howard and Martin [83] introduced the term reversed-phase to describe separation of fatty acids using solid-supported liquid para‰n or n-octane as nonpolar stationary phases that were eluted with polar aqueous solvents. At that time, these systems appeared to be ‘‘reversed’’ to the ‘‘normal’’ arrangement of polar stationary phases used with less polar eluents. Although reversed-phase applications outnumber normal-phase chromatographic applications today, the nomenclature still applies. The most common polar sorbents used for normal-phase SPE are silica (SiO2 )x , alumina (Al2 O3 ), magnesium silicate (MgSiO3 or Florisil), and the bonded silica sorbents in which silica is reacted with highly polar functional groups to produce aminopropyl [(SiO2 )x a(CH2 )3 NH2 ]-, cyanopropyl [(SiO2 )x a(CH2 )3 CN]-, and diol [(SiO2 )x a(CH2 )3 OCH2 CH(OH)CH2 (OH)]modified silica sorbents (Figure 2.21). Polar SPE sorbents are often used to

H N

O Silica

Silica

H C N

O

H H

(a) cyanopropyl-modified silica sorbent

(b) silica sorbent

Sil ic a

H O O

O

H OH (c) diol-modified silica sorbent

Figure 2.21. Interactions between analytes and polar sorbents via dipolar attraction or hydrogen bonding.

solid-phase extraction

83

Si OH Si O Si O O Si OH O O O Si Si Si O Si HO O O Si OH Si HO O O Si O OH HO Si Si O Si O O OH HO O Si Si Si O O Si OH HO O HO Si Si O Si OH Si O O O Si O Si O Si O O Si Si Si Si O O O O O O Si OH OH Si O Si Si Si OH OH Si O Si O O Si O O Si Si Si O O O O Si O Si Si Si Si

Figure 2.22. Representation of an unbonded silica particle. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 84. Copyright 6 2002 Waters Corporation.)

remove matrix interferences from organic extracts of plant and animal tissue [73]. The hydrophilic matrix components are retained by the polar sorbent while the analyte of interest is eluted from the sorbent. The interactions between solute and sorbent are controlled by strong polar forces including hydrogen bonding, dipole–dipole interactions, p–p interactions, and induced dipole–dipole interactions [75]. Porous silica (Figure 2.22) is an inorganic polymer (SiO2 )x used directly as a sorbent itself and for the preparation of an important family of sorbents known as chemically bonded silicas that are discussed later. Silica consists of siloxane backbone bridges, aSiaOaSia, and silanol groups, aSiaOH. Colin and Guiochon [85] proposed that there are five main types of silanol group sites on the surface of a silica particle, depending on the method of preparation and pretreatment of the silica, including free silanol, silanol with

84

principles of extraction

physically adsorbed water, dehydrated oxide, geminal silanol, and bound and reactive silanol. Porous silica consists of a directly accessible external surface and internal pores accessible only to molecules approximately less than 12,000 Da [86]. Pesek and Matyska [87] have reviewed the chemical and physical properties of silica. Silica particles used for SPE sorbents are typically irregularly shaped, 40 to 60 mm in diameter. Silica particles used for sorbents in high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) columns are generally spherical and 3 to 5 mm in diameter. Due to the di¤erences in size and shape, SPE sorbents are less expensive than HPLC sorbents. Much greater pressures are required to pump solvents through the smaller particle sizes used in HPLC. Apolar Polymeric Resins Synthetic styrene–divinylbenzene and other polymers, particularly the trademarked XAD resins developed by Rohm & Haas, were used for SPE in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, the particle size of the XAD resins is too large for e‰cient SPE applications, and therefore the resins require additional grinding and sizing. Also, intensive purification procedures are needed for XAD resins [73,75]. In the latter half of the 1990s, porous, highly cross-linked polystyrene– divinylbenzene (PS-DVB) resins with smaller, spherical particle sizes more suitable for SPE uses became available (Figure 2.23). The new generation of apolar polymeric resins is produced in more purified form, reducing the level of impurities extracted from the sorbent. Polymeric resins are discussed in more detail by Huck and Bonn [69], Fritz [73], Thurman and Mills [75], and Pesek and Matyska [87]. The enhanced performance of PS-DVB resins is due to their highly hydrophobic character and greater surface area as compared to the bonded silica sorbents, which are discussed in the following section. The strong sorption properties of PS-DVB resins may arise from the aromatic, poly-

)n

(

Figure 2.23. Cross-linked styrene–divinylbenzene copolymer.

(

)n

solid-phase extraction

85

meric structure that can interact with aromatic analytes via p–p interactions. However, because PS-DVB sorbents are highly hydrophobic, they are less selective. Also, PS-DVB sorbents exhibit low retention of polar analytes. Polymeric organic sorbents can reportedly be used at virtually any pH, 2 to 12 [75] or 0 to 14 [73,88], increasing the potential to analyze simultaneously multiresidue samples containing acidic, basic, and neutral compounds. Polymeric sorbents contain no silanol groups and thereby avoid the problems caused by residual silanol groups when bonded silica sorbents are used [73,75]. The PS-DVB sorbents can be more retentive than the bonded silica sorbents. Polymeric sorbents have been shown to be capable of retaining chemicals in their ionized form even at neutral pH. Pichon et al. [88] reported SPE recovery of selected acidic herbicides using a styrene–divinylbenzene sorbent so retentive that no adjustment of the pH of the solution was necessary to achieve retention from water samples at pH 7. At pH 7 the analytes were ionized and thereby retained in their ionic form. To e¤ect retention of acidic compounds in their nonionized form using bonded silica sorbents, it is necessary to lower the pH of the sample to approximately 2. Analysis at neutral pH can be preferable to reduced pH because at lower pHs undesirable matrix contaminants, such as humic substances in environmental samples, can be coextracted and coeluted with the analytes of interest and subsequently may interfere with chromatographic analyses. Bonded Silica Sorbents The first class of sorbents used for modern-era SPE were bonded-phase silicas. In the early 1970s, bonded silica sorbents found popularity as a stationary phase for HPLC. HPLC was not commonly used until the early 1970s, nor SPE until the late 1970s, until the application of silanized, or bonded silica sorbents, was realized. May et al. [89] and Little and Fallick [90] are credited with the first reports of applying bonded phases to accumulate organic compunds from water [60]. The first article about SPE on commercially available bonded-phase silica (an octadecyl, C18 , phase) was published by Subden et al. [91] and described the cleanup of histamines from wines. Chemically bonded silica sorbents are currently the most commonly used solid phase for SPE. Bonded stationary phases are prepared by ‘‘grafting’’ organic nonpolar, polar, or ionic ligands (denoted R) to a silica particle via covalent reaction with the silanol groups on its surface. The importance of this advancement to chromatography in general and particularly to solidphase extraction was the ability to produce highly hydrophobic phases that were more attractive to organic solutes in aqueous solution than any other

86

principles of extraction

Silica

NH2

reversed-phase octadecyl (C18) modified silica sorbent Figure 2.24. Interactions between analytes and nonpolar bonded silica sorbents via van der Waals forces.

sorbents available at the time. Reversed-phase bonded silica sorbents having alkyl groups covalently bonded to the silica gel backbone interact primarily with analytes via van der Waals forces (Figure 2.24). Bonded-phase sorbents are stable to aqueous solvents over a pH range of 1 to 8.5, above which the silica backbone itself begins to dissolve and below which the SiaC bond is attacked. Manufacturers have continued to extend these ranges through improved products, and researchers have stretched the limits of these restrictions. The development of bonded silica sorbents led to a proliferation of pharmaceutical and environmental applications for extracting semivolatile organics from aqueous solution. The bonded phases produced by manufacturers vary according to the nature of the silica used to prepare the bonded phase and in the reactants and reaction conditions used. The variations are closely guarded, proprietary manufacturing processes. However, it is generally known that the most common commercially manufactured bonded-phase sorbents are based on chemical reaction between silica and organosilanes via the silanol groups on the silica surface to produce chemically stable SiaOaSiaC covalent linkages to the silica backbone [75,87]. Nonpolar, polar, or ionic bonded phases can be prepared by varying the nature of the organic moiety bonded to the silica surface. Bonded phases can be obtained as monomeric or polymeric coverage of an organic ligand group, R, on the silica surface depending on whether a monofunctional (R3 SiX) or a trifunctional (RSiX3 ) reactant is used, respec-

87

solid-phase extraction

Si

O X

H

Si

R R R

Si

O

Si

O

(a)

X H X H X

Si

R

(b)

Figure 2.25. Reaction of a (a) monofunctional or (b) trifunctional organosilane with silanol groups on the silica surface.

tively (Figure 2.25). The organosilane contains a reactive group, X, that will interact chemically with the silanol groups on the silica surface. Typically, the reactant is an organochloro- or organoalkoxysilane in which the moiety, X, is chloro, methoxy, or ethoxy. One or two SiaX groups can remain unreacted per bonded functional group because of the stoichiometry observed when trifunctional reactant modifiers are used. Hydrolysis of the SiaX group occurs in the workup procedure and results in the re-formation of new silanol groups (Figure 2.26), thereby reducing the hydrophobic character of the sorbent surface. The reactions result in the formation of a cross-linked polymeric network and/ or a multilayer adsorbent. The monomeric types of bonded sorbents are obtained by using monofunctional organosilanes such as alkyldimethylmonochlorosilane to preclude the possibility of re-forming unreacted silanol groups. A polymeric surface structure can result in slower mass transfer of the analyte in the polymer coating compared with the more ‘‘brush- or bristlelike’’ bonding of monomeric phases and thereby lead to higher e‰ciencies with monomeric phases. However, Thurman and Mills [75] note that the trifunctional reagent yields a phase that is more stable to acid because the

Si

OH

Si

OH

Si

Si

Si

R

O Si

Si

R

O Si

+ R Si X3

O

O

X

H 2O

OH

Figure 2.26. Reformation of additional silanol groups during processing when trifunctional modifiers are used.

88

principles of extraction

Si

OH + CI

Si

CH3

3

Si

O

Si

CH3

3

+ HCI

Figure 2.27. Accessible silanol groups are endcapped by reaction with trimethylchlorosilane.

organosilane is attached to the silica surface by multiple linkages to the silica backbone. Silanol groups can be left unreacted on the silica surface, due to reaction conditions or steric inhibition, or generated during subsequent processing of polymeric bonded phases. In either case, they can have an e¤ect on the sorption of the target analyte. Hennion [92] notes that silanol groups are uncharged at pH 2 and become increasingly dissociated above pH 2. Experimentally observable e¤ects due to negatively charged silanols are evident above pH 4. The presence of unmasked silanol groups may have a positive, negative, or little e¤ect, depending on the specific analyte of interest [93]. A positively charged competing base, such as triethylamine or tetrabutylammonium hydrogen sulfate, can be added to the sample to mask residual silanols. To reduce the number of accessible silanol groups remaining on the sorbent, a technique known as capping or endcapping is sometimes used. With this technique, a small silane molecule such as trimethylchlorosilane is allowed to react with the bonded silica (Figure 2.27) to produce a more hydrophobic surface. When using bonded silica SPE sorbents (or HPLC columns), a monomeric or polymeric phase may be best for a given analyte–matrix situation. Similarly, an endcapped or unendcapped product may be best. The preceding discussion should be helpful to analysts when consulting with manufacturers regarding the nature of the bonded surface of the sorbents produced. Hennion [92] recently published a table listing characteristics of some common, commercially available bonded silicas, including data on porosity, mean particle diameter, functionality of the silane used for bonding (i.e., mono- or trifunctional), endcapping, and percent carbon content. Bonded silica sorbents are commercially available with many variations in the organic ligand group, R. Common bonded phases produced for reversed-phase applications include hydrophobic, aliphatic alkyl groups, such as octadecyl (C18 ), octyl (C 8 ), ethyl (C 2 ), or cyclohexyl, covalently bonded to the silica gel backbone. Aromatic phenyl groups can also be attached. The R ligand can contain cyanopropyl or diol hydrophilic functional groups that result in polar sorbents used in normal-phase applications. Ionic functional groups, including carboxylic acid, sulfonic acid, aminopropyl, or qua-

solid-phase extraction

89

ternary amines, can also be bonded to the silica sorbent to produce ionexchange sorbents. The primary disadvantages of the bonded silica sorbents are their limited pH stability and the ubiquitous presence of residual silanol groups. Despite these di‰culties, the bonded silicas have been the workhorse sorbents of SPE applications for the last two decades and are still the most commonly used SPE sorbents. Graphitized Carbon Sorbents Graphitized carbon sorbents are earning a reputation for the successful extraction of very polar, extremely water soluble organic compounds from aqueous samples. The retention behavior of the graphitized carbon sorbents is di¤erent than that of the apolar polymeric resins or the hydrophobic bonded silica sorbents. Two types of graphitized carbon sorbents, graphitized carbon blacks (GCBs) and porous graphitic carbons (PGCs), are commercially available for SPE applications. GCBs do not have micropores and are composed of a nearly homogeneous surface array of graphitelike carbon atoms. Polar adsorption sites on GCBs arise from surface oxygen complexes that are few in number but interact strongly with polar compounds. Therefore, GCBs behave both as a nonspecific sorbent via van der Waals interactions and as an anion-exchange sorbent via electrostatic interactions [92,94,95]. GCBs have the potential for simultaneous extraction of neutral, basic, and acidic compounds. In some cases no pH adjustment of the sample is necessary. Desorption can be di‰cult because GCB is very retentive. PGC sorbents have even more highly homogeneous hydrophobic surfaces than GCB sorbents. PGCs are macroporous materials composed of flat, two-dimensional layers of carbon atoms arranged in graphitic structure. The flat, homogeneous surface of PGC arranged in layers of carbons with delocalized p electrons makes it uniquely capable of selective fractionation between planar and nonplanar analytes such as the polychlorinated biphenyls [92,94,95]. Functionalized Polymeric Resins Adding polar functional groups to cross-linked, apolar polymeric resins by covalent chemical modification has developed particularly for generation of SPE sorbents suitable for recovery of polar compounds. Hydrophilic functional groups such as acetyl, benzoyl, o-carboxybenzoyl, 2-carboxy-3/4nitrobenzoyl, 2,4-dicarboxybenzoyl, hydroxymethyl, sulfonate, trimethylammonium, and tetrakis(p-carboxyphenyl)porphyrin have been chemically

90

principles of extraction

introduced into the structural backbone of PS-DVB copolymers [96]. Generation of a macroporous copolymer consisting of two monomer components, divinylbenzene (lipophilic) and N-vinylpyrrolidone (hydrophilic), produced a hydrophilically–lipophilically balanced SPE sorbent [69]. Chemically modifying apolar polymeric sorbents in this way improves wettability, surface contact between the aqueous sample and the sorbent surface, and mass transfer by making the surface of the sorbent less hydrophobic (i.e., more hydrophilic [73,75,96,97]). The sulfonate and trimethylammonium derivatives are used as ion-exchange sorbents, a type of sorbent that is considered in a later section. Higher breakthrough volumes (i.e., indicating greater attraction of the sorbent for the analyte) for selected polar analytes have been observed when the hydrophilic functionalized polymeric resins are used as compared to classical hydrophobic bonded silicas or nonfunctionalized, apolar polymeric resins. In addition to having a greater capacity for polar compounds, functionalized polymeric resins provide better surface contact with aqueous samples. The bonded silica sorbents and the polymeric resins (discussed in earlier sections) have hydrophobic surfaces and require pretreatment, or conditioning, with a hydrophilic solvent to activate the surface to sorb analytes. Using covalent bonding to incorporate hydrophilic character permanently in the sorbent ensures that it will not be leached from the sorbent as are the common hydrophilic solvents (e.g., methanol, acetonitrile, or acetone) used to condition bonded silica sorbents or polymeric resins [69,73,96]. Ion-Exchange Sorbents SPE sorbents for ion exchange are available based on either apolar polymeric resins or bonded silica sorbents. Ion-exchange sorbents contain ionized functional groups such as quaternary amines or sulfonic acids, or ionizable functional groups such as primary/secondary amines or carboxylic acids. The charged functional group on the sorbent associates with the oppositely charged counterion through an electrostatic, or ionic, bond (Figure 2.28). The functional group on the sorbent can be positively or negatively charged. When the sorbent contains a positively charged functional group and the exchangeable counterion on the analyte in the liquid sample matrix is negatively charged, the accumulation process is called anion exchange. Conversely, if the functional group on the sorbent surface is negatively charged and the exchangeable counterion on the analyte in the liquid sample matrix is positively charged, the accumulation process is called cation exchange.

91

Silica

solid-phase extraction

SO3−

NH3+

Silica

(a) benzenesulfonic acid-modified silica sorbent

N+(CH3)3

−OOC

(b) trimethylaminopropyl-modified silica sorbent Figure 2.28. Interactions between analytes and ion-exchange sorbents: (a) strong cationexchange sorbent and (b) strong anion-exchange sorbent.

The theoretical principles of acid–base equilibria discussed earlier in this chapter apply to the sorbent, the analyte, and the sample in ion-exchange processes. The pH of the sample matrix must be adjusted in consideration of the pK a of the sorbent (Table 2.5) and the pK a of the analyte such that the sorbent and the analyte are oppositely charged under sample loading conditions. Anion-exchange sorbents for SPE contain weakly basic functional groups such as primary or secondary amines which are charged under low-pH conditions or strongly basic quaternary ammonium groups which are charged at all pHs. Cation-exchange sorbents for SPE contain weakly acidic functional Table 2.5. Ionization Constants of Ion-Exchange Sorbents Ion-Exchange Sorbents Cation exchange aCH2 CH2 COOH aCH2 CH2 CH2 SO3 H aCH2 CH2 fSO3 H Anion exchange aCH2 CH2 CH2 NHCH2 CH2 NH2 aCH2 CH2 CH2 N(CH2 CH3 )2 aCH2 CH2 CH2 Nþ (CH3 )3 Cl Source: Data from Ref. 98.

Sorbent pKa 4.8 90%) from a sample, but only 1 to 2% of the sample is injected into the analytical instrument. SPME nonexhaustively extracts only a small portion of the analyte (2 to 20%), whereas all of the sample is injected [68,73,75]. Furthermore, SPME facilitates unique investigations, such as extraction from very small samples (i.e., single cells). SPME has the potential for analyses in living systems with minimal disturbance of chemical equilibria because it is a nonexhaustive extraction system [51]. Despite the advantages of an equilibrium, nonexhaustive extraction procedure, there are also disadvantages. Matrix e¤ects can be a major disadvantage of a sample preparation method that is based on equilibration rather than exhaustive extraction [134]. Changes in the sample matrix may a¤ect quantitative results, due to alteration of the value of the distribution constant relative to that obtained in a pure aqueous sample [68,134]. SPME can be used to extract semivolatile organics from environmental waters and biological matrices as long as the sample is relatively clean. Extraction of semivolatile organic compounds by SPME from dirty matrices is more di‰cult [134]. One strategy for analyzing semivolatiles from dirty matrices is to heat the sample to drive the compound into the sample headspace for SPME sampling; another approach is to rinse the fiber to remove nonvolatile compounds before analysis [134]. 2.5.1. Sorbents For structural integrity, SPME sorbents are most commonly immobilized by coating onto the outside of fused silica fibers or on the internal surface of a capillary tube. The phases are not bonded to the silica fiber core except when the polydimethylsiloxane coating is 7 mm thick. Other coatings are cross-linked to improve stability in organic solvents [135]. De Fatima Alpendurada [136] has reviewed SPME sorbents. Apolar, Single-Component Absorbent Phase Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is a single-component, nonpolar liquid absorbent phase coated on fused silica commercially available in film thick-

solid-phase microextraction

117

nesses of 7, 30, and 100 mm [137]. The PDMS phases can be used in conjunction with analysis by GC or HPLC. The thickest coating, 100 mm, used for volatile compounds by headspace procedures is not discussed in this chapter. The intermediate coating level, 30 mm, is appropriate for use with nonpolar semivolatile organic compounds, while the smallest-diameter coating, 7 mm, is used when analyzing nonpolar, high-molecular-weight compounds. The use of PDMS fibers is restricted to a sample pH between 4 and 10 [136]. Polar, Single-Component Absorbent Phase Polyacrylate (PA) is a single-component polar absorbent coating commercially available in a film thickness of 85 mm [137]. The sorbent is used with GC or HPLC analyses and is suitable for the extraction of polar semivolatile compounds. Porous, Adsorbent, Blended Particle Phases Multiple-component phases were developed to exploit adsorbent processes for SPME. Adsorbent blended phases commercially available for SPME contain either divinylbenzene (DVB) and/or Carboxen particles suspended in either PDMS, a nonpolar phase, or Carbowax (CW), a moderately polar phase [55]. The solid particle is suspended in a liquid phase to coat it onto the fiber. PDMS-DVB is a multiple-component bipolar sorbent coating. PDMSDVB is commercially available in a film thickness of 65 mm for SPME of volatile, amine, or nitroaromatic analytes for GC analyses or in a film thickness of 60 mm for SPME of amines and polar compounds for final determination by HPLC [137]. DVB is suspended in the PDMS phase [135]. CW-DVB is a multiple-component, polar sorbent manufactured in 65- or 70-mm film thicknesses for GC analyses. SPME using CW-DVB is appropriate for the extraction of alcohols and polar compounds [137]. DVB is suspended in the Carbowax phase [135]. Carboxen/PDMS is a multiple-component bipolar sorbent (75 or 85 mm thickness) used for SPME of gases and low-molecular-weight compounds with GC analyses [137]. Carboxen is suspended in the PDMS phase [135]. Carboxen is a trademark for porous synthetic carbons; Carboxen 1006 used in SPME has an even distribution of micro-, meso-, and macropores. Carboxens uniquely have pores that travel through the entire length of the particle, thus promoting rapid desorption [135]. Among the SPME fibers currently available, the 85-mm Carboxen/PDMS sorbent is the best choice for extracting analytes having molecular weights of less than 90, regardless of

118

principles of extraction

functional groups present with the exception of isopropylamine [138]. The Carboxen particles extract analytes by adsorption. DVB/Carboxen-PDMS is a multiple-component bipolar phase that contains a combination of DVB-PDMS (50 mm) layered over Carboxen-PDMS (30 mm) [55,137]. This arrangement expands the analyte molecular weight range, because larger analytes are retained in the meso- and macropores of the outer DVB layer, while the micropores in the inner layer of Carboxen retain smaller analytes [55]. The dual-layered phase is used for extraction of odor compounds and volatile and semivolatile flavor compounds with GC analysis. DVB sorbents have a high a‰nity for small amines; consequently, the combination coating of DVB over Carboxen is the best sorbent choice for extracting isopropylamine [138]. CW/templated resin (TPR), 50 mm, is used for analysis of surfactants by HPLC. The templated resin in CW/TPR is a hollow, spherical DVB formed by coating DVB over a silica template. When the silica is dissolved, the hollow, spherical DVB particle formed has no micro- or mesopores [135]. 2.5.2. Sorbent Selection Analyte size, concentration levels, and detection limits must all be taken into consideration when selecting SPME sorbents [55]. Physical characteristics, including molecular weight, boiling point, vapor pressure, polarity, and presence of functional groups, of the analytes of interest must be considered [135]. Analyte size is important because it is related to the di¤usion coe‰cient of the analyte in the sample matrix and in the sorbent. When selecting an SPME sorbent (Table 2.7), the polarity of the sorbent coating should match the polarity of the analyte of interest, and the coating should be resistant to high-temperature conditions and extremes in pH, salts, and other additives [130]. In addition to selecting sorbents having a high a‰nity for the analyte of interest, it is important to select sorbents with a lack of a‰nity for interfering compounds [134]. Recovery Extraction recovery can be optimized by changing sample conditions such as pH, salt concentration, sample volume, temperature, and extraction time [130,132,133,136]. Currently, all commercially available SPME sorbents are neutral, such that the sample pH should be adjusted to ensure that the analyte of interest is also neutral [131]. The detection limits for SPME headspace sampling are equivalent to SPME liquid sampling for volatile compounds. However, semivolatile organic compounds di¤use slowly into the headspace so that SPME headspace sampling is not appropriate for semivolatile compounds [134].

119

solid-phase microextraction Table 2.7. SPME Fiber Selection Guide Analyte Class Acids (C2–C8) Acids (C2–C15) Alcohols (C1–C8) Alcohols (C1–C18) Aldehydes (C2–C8) Aldehydes (C3–C14) Amines Amphetamines Aromatic amines Barbiturates Benzidines Benzodiazepines Esters (C3–C15) Esters (C6–C18) Esters (C12–C30) Ethers (C4–C12) Explosives (nitroaromatics) Hydrocarbons (C2–C10) Hydrocarbons (C5–C20) Hydrocarbons (C10–C30) Hydrocarbons (C20–C40þ) Ketones (C3–C9) Ketones (C5–C12) Nitrosamines PAHs

Fiber Type

Linear Range

Carboxen-PDMS CW-DVB Carboxen-PDMS CW-DVB Polyacrylate Carboxen-PDMS 100 mm PDMS PDMS-DVB 100 mm PDMS PDMS-DVB PDMS-DVB PDMS-DVB CW-DVB PDMS-DVB 100 mm PDMS 30 mm PDMS 7 mm PDMS Carboxen-PDMS PDMS-DVB Carboxen-PDMS 100 mm PDMS 30 mm PDMS 7 mm PDMS Carboxen-PDMS 100 mm PDMS PDMS-DVB 100 mm PDMS 30 mm PDMS 7 mm PDMS

10 ppb–1 ppm 50 ppb–50 ppm 10 ppb–1 ppm 50 ppb–75 ppm 100 ppb–100 ppm 1 ppb–500 ppb 50 ppb–50 ppm 50 ppb–50 ppm 100 ppb–100 ppm 50 ppb–50 ppm 5 ppb–1 ppm 500 ppb–100 ppm 5 ppb–500 ppb 100 ppb–50 ppm 5 ppb–10 ppm 5 ppb–1 ppm 5 ppb–1 ppm 1 ppb–500 ppb 1 ppb–1 ppm 10 ppb–10 ppm 500 ppt–1 ppb 100 ppt–500 ppb 5 ppb–500 ppb 5 ppb–1 ppm 5 ppb–10 ppm 1 ppb–200 ppb 500 ppt–1 ppm 100 ppt–500 ppb 500 ppt–500 ppb

Source: Reprinted from Ref. 135. Copyright 6 (1999) Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Thicker phase coatings extract a greater mass of analyte, but the extraction time is longer than for a thinner coating [135]. Because the coated fiber sorbents are reused multiple times, ease and completeness of desorption of the fiber is an issue in order to reduce sample carryover [134]. 2.5.3. Methodology Although various ways to implement SPME are proposed and are being developed (Figure 2.46), there are two primary approaches to conducting SPME (Figure 2.47): with the sorbent coated on the outer surface of fibers

120

principles of extraction (a)

extracting phase

solid support

(b)

Figure 2.47. Two di¤erent implementations of the SPME technique: (a) polymer coated on outer surface of fiber; (b) polymer coated on internal surface of capillary tube. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 51. Copyright 6 2000 Elsevier Science.)

or with the sorbent coated on the internal surface of a capillary tube [51]. The fiber design can be interfaced with either GC or HPLC. However, the in-tube design has developed as an easier approach for interfacing SPME with HPLC. In the fiber design, a fused silica core fiber is coated with a thin film (7 to 100 mm) of liquid polymer or a solid sorbent in combination with a liquid polymer (Figure 2.47a). Fiber lengths are generally 1 cm, although di¤erentsized fibers can be prepared. In addition to standard fused silica fibers, silica fibers coated in a thin layer of plastic are also available. The plastic coating makes the fiber more flexible, and the sorbent phase coating bonds to the plastic layer better than the bare fused silica [55]. The in-tube design for SPME uses 0.25-mm-ID capillary tubes with about 0.1 mL of coating of the sorbent on the internal surface of the tube [51]. The theoretical calculations of the phase volume of the sorbent are facilitated by considering the fiber to be a right cylinder. The dimensions of the fused silica fiber are accurately known so that the volume of the fused silica core can be subtracted from the total volume of the fiber to yield the phase volume of the sorbent. SPME (Figure 2.48) can be conducted as a direct extraction in which the coated fiber is immersed in the aqueous sample; in a headspace configuration for sampling air or the volatiles from the headspace above an aqueous sample in a vial (headspace SPME analyses are discussed elsewhere); or by a membrane protection approach, which protects the fiber coating, for analyses of analytes in very polluted samples [136]. The SPME process consists of two steps (Figure 2.49): (a) the sorbent, either an externally coated fiber or an internally coated tube, is exposed to the sample for a specified period of time; (b) the sorbent is transferred to a device that interfaces with an ana-

121

solid-phase microextraction Sample Headspace

Coating

Fiber

Sample (a)

Membrane

Coating (b)

Sample (c)

Figure 2.48. Modes of SPME operation: (a) direct extraction; (b) headspace SPME; (c) membrane-protected SPME. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 51. Copyright 6 2000 Elsevier Science.)

lytical instrument for thermal desorption using GC or for solvent desorption when using HPLC. In the fiber mode, the sorbent coated fiber is housed in a microsyringelike protective holder. With the fiber retracted inside the syringe needle, the needle is used to pierce the septum of the sample vial. The plunger is depressed to expose the sorbent-coated fiber to the sample. After equilibrium is reached or at a specified time prior to reaching equilibrium, the fiber is retracted into the protection of the microsyringe needle and the needle is withdrawn from the sample. The sorbent is then interfaced with an analytical instrument where the analyte is desorbed thermally for GC or by solvents for HPLC or capillary electrophoresis. For the in-tube mode, a sample aliquot is repeatedly aspirated and dispensed into an internally coated capillary. An organic solvent desorbs the analyte and sweeps it into the injector [68,130,133]. An SPME autosampler has been introduced by Varian, Inc., that automates the entire process for GC analyses. Procedures Determination of the optimum time for which the SPME sorbent will be in direct contact with the sample is made by constructing an extraction-time profile of each analyte(s) of interest. The sorption and desorption times are greater for semivolatile compounds than for volatile compounds. To prepare the extraction-time profile, samples composed of a pure matrix spiked with the analyte(s) of interest are extracted for progressively longer times. Constant temperature and sample convection must be controlled. Stirring the

122

principles of extraction 1

2

3

4

5

6

D

F S lower temperature

I C higher temperature

Figure 2.49. Principle of SPME: 1, introduction of syringe needle of the SPME device (D) into the sample vial and close to the sample (S), 2, moving the fiber (F) into the position outside the syringe and into the sample (extraction), 3, moving the fiber back into the syringe needle and subsequent transfer of the device to the GC injector port (1) and capillary head (C), 4, penetration of the septum with syringe needle, 5, moving the fiber into the position outside the syringe (desorption), 6, moving the fiber back into the syringe needle and withdrawing the needle. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 130. Copyright 6 2000 Elsevier Science.)

sample during sorption is necessary to reduce the di¤usion layer at the sample matrix/sorbent interface and reach equilibrium faster [132]. A graph is prepared of time plotted on the x-axis and the detector response, or amount of analyte extracted, plotted on the y-axis (Figure 2.50). The extraction-time profile enables the analyst to select a reasonable extraction time while taking into consideration the detection limit of the analyte [134,136]. The SPME extraction-time profile prepared in this manner is typically composed of three distinct stages: the initial period of greatest amount of analyte extracted per time in which the graph rises sharply and has the greatest slope (however, small errors in the time measurement can lead to large errors in estimating the amount of analyte extracted); second, the profile enters an intermediate stage in which the slope of the plot is positive but smaller in magnitude relative to the initial stages of the plot; and finally, under ideal conditions equilibrium is reached such that the plot is a plateau

123

solid-phase microextraction 180 160 140

Simetryn Ametryn

Mass [ng]

120

Prometryn

100

Terbutryn

80

Parathion

60 40 20 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Absorption time [min] Figure 2.50. SPME absorption–time profile for four s-triazines and parathion using magnetic stirring. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 139. Copyright 6 1997 Elsevier Science.)

where the slope is equal to zero and there is no further increase in analyte extracted regardless of increases in contact time (Figure 2.51). Under equilibrium conditions, small errors in the time measurement produce small errors in estimating the amount of analyte extracted. Essentially, it is appropriate to conduct SPME under either the intermediate or equilibrium conditions in order to minimize the standard deviation of the analytical

GC Response (area counts) 100,000 80,000 60,000 7% rel. error 40,000 20,000 0

20% rel. error 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Time (min) Figure 2.51. Selection of the extraction time based on extraction time profile of p, p 0 -DDT. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 128. Copyright 6 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

124

principles of extraction

measurements. In the first stage of the extraction-time profile, contact times are short, which shortens the overall analytical time, but the degree of error in the measurement is large. To reach true equilibrium, contact times may be long, but the degree of error in the measurement is small. Choosing a contact time within the intermediate region of the extraction-time profile strikes a balance between the contact time required for measurement and the anticipated degree of error. When intermediate contact times are used that do not reach equilibrium, the longest reasonable extraction time should be selected for quantitation in order to maximize the limit of detection and minimize the relative error of determination. Quantitation of extraction under nonequilibrium conditions is based on the proportional relationship between the sorbed analyte and initial concentration [68]. Calibration of the SPME technique can be based on internal calibration using isotopically labeled standards or standard addition if recovery is matrix dependent. External calibration can be used if the standard matrix and the sample matrix are closely similar or identical [128,132,134]. 2.5.4. Recent Advances in Techniques Mullett et al. [126] recently published an automated application of a variation on the in-tube SPME approach for the analysis of propranolol and other b-blocker class drugs. The analytes were extracted from serum samples using a molecularly imprinted polymeric (MIP) adsorbent phase. MIP phases were discussed earlier as an emerging type of sorbent being used for SPE analyses. MIP phases are polymeric sorbents prepared in the presence of a target analyte that performs as a molecular template. When the template is removed, cavities that are selective recognition sites for the target analyte remain in the sorbent. In this approach, the MIP sorbent based on propranolol was passed through a 50-mm sieve and the fines removed by sedimentation in methanol. A slurry of the sorbent in methanol was placed into an 80-mm length of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) tubing of 0.76 mm ID such that the particles were not packed but suspended in the tube to allow easy flow through of the sample (Figure 2.46d ). The MIP SPME capillary column was placed between the injection loop and the injection needle of an HPLC autosampler. The extraction process utilized the autosampler to aspirate and dispense the sample repeatedly across the extraction sorbent in the capillary column. In this technique, the sorbent is a ‘‘solid-phase’’ and the procedure is a ‘‘microscale extraction.’’ The technique is not SPE because the particles are loosely packed and the sample passes back and forth through the column. However, the surface contact area between the sorbent and the sample is much greater than in the coated fiber or coated inner surface tubing SPME procedures described earlier. To this author, the

stir bar sorptive extraction

125

extraction phase of the SPME procedural variation reported in this paper is more closely related to classical batch LSE, with a miniaturization of scale, than it is to classical SPME. Regardless of terminology, the approach taken in this paper is analytically elegant, and along with other examples discussed in this chapter, well illustrates the fact that the lines between strict definitions of LLE and LSE procedures and among LSE procedures are becoming blurred as analysts derive new procedures. The techniques available represent a continuum array of extraction approaches for today’s analyst. Koster et al. [140] conducted on-fiber derivatization for SPME to increase the detectability and extractability of drugs in biological samples. Amphetamine was used as a model compound. The extraction was performed by direct immersion of a 100-mm polydimethylsiloxane-coated fiber into bu¤ered human urine. On-fiber derivatization was performed with pentafluorobenzoyl chloride either after or simultaneously with extraction.

2.6. STIR BAR SORPTIVE EXTRACTION

Stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE), an approach theoretically similar to SPME, was recently introduced [141] for the trace enrichment of organic compounds from aqueous food, biological, and environmental samples. A stir bar is coated with a sorbent and immersed in the sample to extract the analyte from solution. To date, reported SBSE procedures were not usually operated as exhaustive extraction procedures; however, SBSE has a greater capacity for quantitative extraction than SPME. The sample is typically stirred with the coated stir bar for a specified time, usually for less than 60 minutes, depending on the sample volume and the stirring speed, to approach equilibrium. SBSE improves on the low concentration capability of insample solid-phase microextraction (IS-SPME). The stir bar technique has been applied to headspace sorptive extraction (HSSE) [142–144]. However, headspace techniques are discussed elsewhere, as they are more applicable to volatile organic compounds than to the semivolatile organic compounds that comprise the focus of this chapter. 2.6.1. Sorbent and Analyte Recovery To date, the only sorbent used reportedly for coating the stir bar is polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), although the use of stir bars coated with polar sorbents is predicted for the future [141]. Using this sorbent, the primary mechanism of interaction with organic solutes is via absorption or partitioning into the PDMS coating such that the distribution constant [equation (2.37)] between PDMS and water (K PDMS=W ) is proposed to be proportional

126

principles of extraction

to the octanol–water partition coe‰cient (K OW ) [141]: KD ¼

½XŠB ¼ K PDMS=W A K OW ½XŠA

ð2:37Þ

According to the theoretical development for this technique given in Baltussen et al. [141], K OW A K PDMS=W ¼

½XŠPDMS m PDMS VW ¼  ½XŠW mW VPDMS

ð2:38Þ

where [X]PDMS and [X]W , and m PDMS and m W , are the analyte concentration and the analyte mass in the PDMS and water phase, respectively, while VPDMS and VW represent the volume of the PDMS sorbent and water phase, respectively. Therefore, the parameters determining the mass of an analyte recovered by SBSE using the PDMS sorbent are the partition coe‰cient of the analyte ðK OW Þ and the phase ratio ðVW =VPDMS Þ of the volume of the water phase to the volume of the PDMS coating on the stir bar. Baltussen et al. [141] theoretically compared recovery by SBSE using a stir bar assumed to be coated with a 100-mL volume of PDMS to recovery by IS-SPME having an assumed coating volume of 0.5 mL of PDMS. For the extraction of a 10-mL sample of water, it was demonstrated (Figure 2.52) that with SBSE, a more favorable extraction of analytes having lower K OW values should be possible than with SPME. The small volume of the PDMS sorbent used in SPME results in a large phase ratio that implies [equation (2.38)] that a high octanol–water partition coe‰cient is required for e‰cient extraction. For SPME using PDMS, the analyte K OW value is estimated (Figure 2.52) to be 20,000 ðlog K OW ¼ 4:3Þ or greater for high recovery e‰ciency from a 10-mL sample volume [141,145], whereas, using SBSE with PDMS, analytes with a K OW value of 500 ðlog K OW ¼ 2:7Þ or greater can be extracted more quantitatively [141] due to the higher volume of PDMS coating for SBSE devices relative to SPME fibers. However, since larger volumes of PDMS are used in SBSE than in SPME, more time is required to reach equilibrium because more analyte mass will be transferred to the PDMS sorbent phase [145]. In comparing the same compounds while using PDMS sorbent, recovery from aqueous solution by SBSE was demonstrated [141] to be greater than recovery by SPME. Tredoux et al. [146] noted enrichment factors for benzoic acid in beverages to be approximately 100 times higher for SBSE relative to SPME, and Ho¤mann et al. [147] reported sensitivities 100 to 1000 times higher by SBSE than by SPME for the extraction of analytes in orange juice and wine.

127

stir bar sorptive extraction 1 0.9 0.8

Recovery

0.7 0.6 SBSE

0.5

SPME

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Kow Figure 2.52. Theoretical recovery of analytes in SBSE and SPME from a 10-mL water sample as a function of their octanol–water partitioning constant. Volume of PDMS on SPME fiber: 0.5 mL; volume of PDMS on SBSE stir bar: 100 mL. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 141. Copyright 6 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

2.6.2. Methodology The stir bar consists of a stainless steel rod encased in a glass sheath (Figure 2.53). The glass is coated with PDMS sorbent. The length of the stir bar is typically 10 to 40 mm. The PDMS coating varies from 0.3 to 1 mm, resulting in PDMS phase volumes of 55 to 220 mL [145]. With a larger stir bar, more PDMS coating is deposited, and consequently, a larger sample volume can be extracted. A thermodesorption unit that will accept the PDMS-coated stir bar is used to transfer the analytes into a gas chromatograph (Figure 2.54). The analyte is desorbed from the stir bar and cryofocused on a precolumn. Subsequent flash heating transfers analytes into the gas chromatograph. After desorption, the stir bar can be reused. Procedures Extraction of aqueous samples occurs during stirring at a specified speed for a predefined time. After a given stirring time, the bar is removed from the sample and is usually thermally desorbed into a gas chromatograph.

128

principles of extraction iron bar

glass sheath PDMS Figure 2.53. Schematic representation of a stir bar applied for SBSE. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 145. Copyright 6 2001 American Chemical Society.)

carrier gas

insert

stir bar

flash heating oven cooling (liquid nitrogen) pre-column

into column Figure 2.54. Schematic representation of the desorption unit. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 145. Copyright 6 2001 American Chemical Society.)

stir bar sorptive extraction

129

However, Popp et al. [148] desorbed extracted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by ultrasonic treatment of the stir bar in acetonitrile or acetonitrile– water mixtures in order to perform liquid chromatographic analyses of the extract. Although the development of this technique is still in its infancy, SBSE should have many useful analytical applications. Extraction remains a balancing act between sorbent mass and sample volume, and it appears that the primary advantage of SBSE using the PDMS sorbent (i.e., greater concentration capability than SPME) will also be its greatest disadvantage. The nonselective sorptive capability of the PDMS sorbent co-concentrates undesirable matrix components from solution. SBSE produces analyte accumulation in the sorbent but not sample cleanup. Sandra et al. [149] reported that for SBSE of fungicides in wine, standard addition methods were necessary for quantification due to matrix e¤ects of the wine on recovery, and Ochiai et al. [150] added surrogate internal standards to compensate for sample matrix e¤ects and coextracted analytes. Benijts et al. [151] also reported matrix suppression when SBSE on PDMS was applied to the enrichment of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from human sperm. The lipophilic medium lowered recoveries from the sperm matrix proportionally with PCB polarity. Nevertheless, SBSE is attractive because it is a solventless enrichment technique. That coupled with the rapidity and ease of use of this procedure will make it a desirable approach for analysts. The introduction of more selective sorbents will overcome problems with matrix e¤ects. 2.6.3. Recent Advances in Techniques SBSE appears to be particularly useful for the extraction of a variety of components from beverages and sauces. Applications have included co¤ee [144], soft drinks [150], orange juice [147], lemon-flavored beverages [146], wine [147,149,150], balsamic vinegar [150], and soy sauce [150]. SBSE was recently applied [152] to the analysis of o¤-flavor compounds, including 2-methylisoborneol (2-MIB) and geosmin, in drinking water. These organic compounds cause taste and odor problems at very low concentrations and are notoriously di‰cult to extract. Detection limits by SBSE ranged from 0.022 to 0.16 ng/L. The recoveries ranged from 89 to 109% with relative standard deviations of 0.80 to 3.7%. Vercauteren et al. [145] used SBSE to determine traces of organotin compounds in environmental samples at part per quadrillion (ppq) levels. The limits of detection reported using SBSE are the lowest ever determined for these compounds.

130

principles of extraction Extraction Techniques

Exhaustive

Non-Exhaustive

Purge and Trap

SPE

Sorbent Trap

SFE

Steady-State Exhaustive and Non Exhaustive

Batch Equilibrium and Preequilibrium

Flow-Through Equilibrium and Preequilibrium

In-tube SPME

Non-Exhaustive

Exhaustive LLE

Sorbents

Headspace

Soxhlet

Membrane

SPME

LLME

HSE

Figure 2.55. Classification of sample preparation techniques. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 155. Copyright 6 2001 NRC Research Press.)

2.7. METHOD COMPARISON

LLE, SPE, SPME, and SBSE applications for the extraction of semivolatile organics from liquids were discussed. Others [134,153,154] have compared sample preparation techniques. When examined collectively for perspective, the sample processing techniques can be perceived as variations on a single theme as practiced by today’s analysts (Figure 2.55). Two fundamentals drive extraction procedures: (1) determining the value of KD for a given analyte–sample matrix–sorbent combination, which will indicate if the process is an equilibrium procedure (in nonequilibrium procedures, KD approaches infinity during sorption), and (2) determining if the majority of the analyte (>90%) is recovered from the sample (Table 2.8), which will indicate if the process used is exhaustive. KD is the continuum that relates the procedures discussed here and those to be developed in the future. As commonly implemented, KD values for the studied procedures decrease in the order KDðSPEÞ > KDðLLEÞ F KDðSBSEÞ > KDðSPMEÞ . As commonly practiced, SPE and SPME exist at opposite ends of the continuum in method fundamentals. LLE is an equilibrium procedure, but through application of repeated extractions, nearly quantitative, or exhaustive, recovery of analytes can be achieved. SBSE is a recently emerging procedure that appears to lie on the extraction continuum between LLE and SPME. The capacity of SBSE for exhaustive extraction is greater than SPME but less

Table 2.8. Extraction Method Fundamentals SPE LLE SBSE SPME

Nonequilibrium Equilibrium Equilibrium Equilibrium

Exhaustive Exhaustive Nonexhaustive Nonexhaustive

references

131

than LLE. The capacity for quantitative, or exhaustive, transfer is related to the KD value and the total mass of sorbent utilized. More sorbent mass is typically present in SBSE than in SPME; therefore, more analyte is transferred to the sorbent in SBSE. Compared to nonequilibrium methods, equilibrium methods tend to be simpler, less expensive, more selective, therefore require less cleanup, require determination of preequilibrium/equilibrium status, are time, temperature, and matrix dependent, and require internal standards for calibration [43,75,128,156]. Extraction approaches di¤er, but the choice of methodology depends on the analyst’s objectives and resources and the client’s expectations. In practice, an analyst may prefer equilibrium or nonequilibrium procedures. However, no stigma should be placed on whether an extraction method is exhaustive or nonexhaustive or equilibrium or nonequilibrium.

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the editorial and graphical assistance of Ms. Amy Knox, Ms. Sandra Pigg, and Ms. Binney Stumpf.

REFERENCES 1. A. J. Bard, Chemical Equilibrium, Harper & Row, New York, 1966, pp. 107, 138. 2. D. Mackay and T. K. Yuen, Water Pollut. Res. J. Can., 15(2), 83 (1980). 3. D. Mackay, W. Y. Shiu, and K. C. Ma, Henry’s law constant, in R. S. Boethling and D. Mackay, eds., Handbook of Property Estimation Methods for Chemicals: Environmental and Health Sciences, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000, p. 69. 4. R. G. Thomas, Volatilization from water, in W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, eds., Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, p. 15-1. 5. C. F. Grain, Vapor pressure, in W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, eds., Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, p. 14-1. 6. D. Mackay, W. Y. Shiu, and K. C. Ma, Illustrated Handbook of PhysicalChemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals, Vol. II, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Dioxins, and Dibenzofurans, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1992, pp. 3, 250–252.

132

principles of extraction

7. M. L. Sage and G. W. Sage, Vapor pressure, in R. S. Boethling and D. Mackay, eds., Handbook of Property Estimation Methods for Chemicals: Environmental and Health Sciences, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000, p. 53. 8. R. P. Schwarzenbach, P. M. Gschwend, and D. M. Imboden, Environmental Organic Chemistry, Wiley, New York, 1993, pp. 56, 57, 77, 109, 111, 124, 131, 163, 178–181, 255–341. 9. K. Verschueren, Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals, 3rd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1996, pp. 4–6, 20, 22. 10. W. J. Lyman, Solubility in water, in W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, eds., Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, p. 2-1. 11. W. J. Lyman, Solubility in various solvents, in W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, eds., Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, p. 3-1. 12. D. Mackay, Solubility in water, in R. S. Boethling and D. Mackay, eds., Handbook of Property Estimation Methods for Chemicals: Environmental and Health Sciences, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000, p. 125. 13. R. E. Ney, Where Did That Chemical Go? A Practical Guide to Chemical Fate and Transport in the Environment, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990, pp. 10, 13, 18, 32. 14. J. Traube, Annalen, 265, 27 (1891). 15. C. Tanford, The Hydrophobic E¤ect: Formation of Micelles and Biological Membranes, Wiley, New York, 1973, pp. 2–4, 10–11, 19, 20, 34. 16. E. Tomlinson, J. Chromatogr., 113, 1 (1975). 17. J. W. McBain, Colloid Science, D.C. Heath, Boston, 1950. 18. H. S. Scheraga, Acc. Chem. Res., 12, 7 (1979). 19. M. J. M. Wells, C. R. Clark, and R. M. Patterson, J. Chromatogr., 235, 43 (1982). 20. H. S. Frank and M. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys., 13, 507 (1945). 21. C. Hansch and A. Leo, Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology, Wiley, New York, 1979, pp. 13–17. 22. A. Leo, Octanol/water partition coe‰cients, in R. S. Boethling and D. Mackay, eds., Handbook of Property Estimation Methods for Chemicals: Environmental and Health Sciences, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000, p. 89. 23. I. E. Bush, The Chromatography of Steroids, Macmillan, New York, 1961, pp. 11, 18. 24. C. Hansch and A. Leo, Exploring QSAR, Vol. I, Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1995, p. 97. 25. H. Meyer, Arch. Exp. Pathol. Pharmakol., 42, 110 (1899).

references

133

26. E. Overton, Studien uber die Narkose, Fischer, Jena, Germany, 1901. 27. R. Collander, Physiol. Plant., 7, 420 (1954). 28. W. J. Lyman, Octanol/water partition coe‰cient, in W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, eds., Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, p. 1-1. 29. T. Fujita, J. Iwasa, and C. Hansch, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 86, 5175 (1964). 30. M. J. M. Wells and C. R. Clark, Anal. Chem., 64, 1660 (1992). 31. M. Nakamura, M. Nakamura, and S. Yamada, Analyst, 121, 469 (1996). 32. M. J. M. Wells and L. Z. Yu, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 237 (2000). 33. D. Mackay, W. Y. Shiu, and K. C. Ma, Illustrated Handbook of PhysicalChemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals, Vol. I, Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorobenzenes, and PCBs, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1992, p. 141. 34. EnviroLand, version 2.50, 2002. www.hartwick.edu/geology/enviroland 35. V. L. Snoeyink and D. Jenkins, Water Chemistry, Wiley, New York, 1980. 36. D. Langmuir, Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. 37. C. T. Jafvert, J. C. Westall, E. Grieder, and R. P. Schwarzenbach, Environ. Sci. Technol., 24, 1795 (1990). 38. I. M. Koltho¤, E. B. Sandell, E. J. Meehan, and S. Bruckenstein, Quantitative Chemical Analysis, 4th ed., Macmillan, New York, 1969, pp. 335–375. 39. Honeywell Burdick & Jackson, Miscibility, 2002. www.bandj.com/BJProduct/SolProperties/Miscibility.html 40. Honeywell Burdick & Jackson, Solubility in water, 2002. www.bandj.com/BJProduct/SolProperties/SolubilityWater.html 41. Honeywell Burdick & Jackson, Density, 2002. www.bandj.com/BJProduct/SolProperties/Density.html 42. Honeywell Burdick & Jackson, Solubility of water in each solvent, 2002. www.bandj.com/BJProduct/SolProperties/SolWaterEach.html 43. M. J. M. Wells, Handling large volume samples: applications of SPE to environmental matrices, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 97– 123. 44. J. R. Dean, Classical approaches for the extraction of analytes from aqueous samples, in Extraction Methods for Environmental Analysis, Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1998, pp. 23–33. 45. A. J. Holden, Solvent and membrane extraction in organic analysis, in A. J. Handley, ed., Extraction Methods in Organic Analysis, She‰eld Academic Press, She‰eld, Yorkshire, England, 1999, pp. 5–53. 46. Kimble/Kontes, Inc., product literature, 2002.

134

principles of extraction

47. T. Fujiwara, I. U. Mohammadzai, K. Murayama, and T. Kumamaru, Anal. Chem., 72, 1715 (2000). 48. M. Tokeshi, T. Minagawa, and T. Kitamori, Anal. Chem., 72, 1711 (2000). 49. S. X. Peng, C. Henson, M. J. Strojnowski, A. Golebiowski, and S. R. Klopfenstein, Anal. Chem., 72, 261 (2000). 50. S. X. Peng, T. M. Branch, and S. L. King, Anal. Chem., 73, 708 (2001). 51. H. Lord and J. Pawliszyn, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 153 (2000). 52. K. S. W. Sing, Historical perspectives of physical adsorption, in J. Fraissard and C. W. Conner, eds., Physical Adsorption: Experiment, Theory and Applications, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997, pp. 3–8. 53. K.-U. Goss and R. P. Schwarzenbach, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35(1), 1 (2001). 54. W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr., Granular carbon adsorption of toxics, in P. W. Lankford and W. W. Eckenfelder, eds., Toxicity Reduction in Industrial E¿uents, Wiley, New York, 1990, pp. 203–208. 55. R. E. Shirey and R. F. Mindrup, SPME-Adsorption versus Absorption: Which Fiber Is Best for Your Application? product literature, T400011, Sigma-Aldrich Co., 1999. www.supelco.com 56. Barnebey & Sutcli¤e Corporation, Activated carbon technologies, in Introduction to Activated Carbons, 1996. 57. W. J. Thomas and B. Crittenden, Adsorption Technology and Design, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA, 1998, pp. 8, 9, 31, 70. 58. M. Henry, SPE technology: principles and practical consequences, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 125–182. 59. A. J. P. Martin and R. L. M. Synge, Biochem. J., 35, 1358 (1941). 60. I. Liska, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 3 (2000). 61. N. J. K. Simpson and M. J. M. Wells, Introduction to solid-phase extraction, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 1–17. 62. M. Zief, L. J. Crane, and J. Horvath, Am. Lab., 14(5), 120, 122, 125–126, 128, 130 (1982). 63. M. Zief, L. J. Crane, and J. Horvath, Int. Lab., 12(5), 102, 104–109, 111 (1982). 64. G. D. Wachob, LC, Liq. Chromatogr. HPLC Mag., 1(2), 110–112 (1983). 65. G. D. Wachob, LC, Liq. Chromatogr. HPLC Mag., 1(7), 428–430 (1983). 66. M. J. M. Wells, O¤-line multistage extraction chromatography for ultraselective herbicide residue isolation, in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Symposium on Sample Preparation and Isolation Using Bonded Silicas, Analytichem International, Harbor City, CA, 1986, pp. 117–135. 67. M. J. M. Wells and J. L. Michael, J. Chromatogr. Sci., 25, 345 (1987). 68. J. S. Fritz and M. Macka, J. Chromatogr. A, 902, 137 (2000).

references

135

69. C. W. Huck and G. K. Bonn, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 51 (2000). 70. M. J. M. Wells and J. L. Michael, Anal. Chem., 59, 1739 (1987). 71. M. J. M. Wells and G. K. Stearman, Coordinating supercritical fluid and solidphase extraction with chromatographic and immunoassay analysis of herbicides, in M. T. Meyer and E. M. Thurman, eds., Herbicide Metabolites in Surface Water and Groundwater, ACS Symposium Series 630, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1996, pp. 18–33. 72. M. J. M. Wells, Essential guides to method development in solid-phase extraction, in I. D. Wilson, E. R. Adlard, M. Cooke, and C. F. Poole, eds., Encyclopedia of Separation Science, Vol. 10, Academic Press, London, 2000, pp. 4636– 4643. 73. J. S. Fritz, Analytical Solid-Phase Extraction, Wiley-VCH, New York, 1999, 264 pp. 74. M. J. M. Wells and V. D. Adams, Determination of anthropogenic organic compounds associated with fixed or suspended solids/sediments: an overview, in R. A. Baker, ed., Organic Substances and Sediments in Water: Processes and Analytical, Vol. 2, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1991, pp. 409–479. 75. E. M. Thurman and M. S. Mills, Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles and Practice, Wiley, New York, 1998, 344 pp. (Vol. 147 in Chemical Analysis: A Series of Monographs on Analytical Chemistry and Its Applications). 76. N. J. K. Simpson and P. M. Wynne, The sample matrix and its influence on method development, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 19–38. 77. C. F. Poole, A. D. Gunatilleka, and R. Sethuraman, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 17 (2000). 78. M. S. Tswett, Proc. Warsaw Soc. Nat. Sci. Biol. Sec., 14(6) (1903). 79. M. S. Tswett, Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges., 24, 234, 316, 384 (1906). 80. R. J. Boscott, Nature, 159, 342 (1947). 81. J. Boldingh, Experientia, 4, 270 (1948). 82. A. J. P. Martin, Biochem. Soc. Symp., 3, 12 (1949). 83. G. A. Howard and A. J. P. Martin, Biochem. J., 46, 532 (1950). 84. Waters Corporation, product literature, 2002. 85. H. Colin and G. Guiochon, J. Chromatogr., 141, 289 (1977). 86. Regis Technologies, Inc., product literature, 2002. 87. J. J. Pesek and M. T. Matyska, SPE sorbents and formats, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 19–38. 88. V. Pichon, C. Cau Dit Coumes, L. Chen, S. Guenu, and M.-C. Hennion, J. Chromatogr. A, 737, 25 (1996). 89. W. E. May, S. N. Chesler, S. P. Cram, B. H. Gump, H. S. Hertz, D. P. Enagonio, and S. M. Dyszel, J. Chromatogr. Sci., 13, 535 (1975).

136 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

98. 99.

100. 101. 102.

103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108.

109. 110. 111. 112.

113.

principles of extraction J. N. Little and G. J. Fallick, J. Chromatogr., 112, 389 (1975). R. E. Subden, R. G. Brown, and A. C. Noble, J. Chromatogr., 166, 310 (1978). M.-C. Hennion, J. Chromatogr. A, 856, 3 (1999). M. J. M. Wells, J. Liq. Chromatogr., 5, 2293 (1982). E. Matisova and S. Skrabakova, J. Chromatogr. A, 707, 145 (1995). M.-C. Hennion, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 73 (2000). M. D. Leon-Gonzalez and L. V. Perez-Arribas, J. Chromatogr. A, 902, 3 (2000). A. J. Handley and R. D. McDowall, Solid phase extraction (SPE) in organic analysis, in A. J. Handley, ed., Extraction Methods in Organic Analysis, She‰eld Academic Press, She‰eld, Yorkshire, England, 1999, pp. 54–74. Varian Sample Preparation Products, Inc., product literature, 2002. www.varianinc.com N. J. K. Simpson, Ion exchange extraction, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., SolidPhase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 493–497. D. T. Rossi and N. Zhang, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 97 (2000). D. Stevenson, J. Chromatogr. B, 745, 39 (2000). D. Stevenson, B. A. Abdul Rashid, and S. J. Shahtaheri, Immuno-a‰nity extraction, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 349–360. B. Sellergren, Anal. Chem., 66, 1578 (1994). J. Olsen, P. Martin, and I. D. Wilson, Anal. Commun., 35, 13H (1998). L. I. Andersson, J. Chromatogr. B, 739, 163 (2000). L. I. Andersson, J. Chromatogr. B, 745, 3 (2000). O. Ramstrom and K. Mosbach, Bio/Technology, 14, 163 (1996). B. Law, Secondary interactions and mixed-mode extraction, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 227–242. Analytichem Int. Curr. Newsl., 1(4) (1982). M. J. M. Wells, D. D. Riemer, and M. C. Wells-Knecht, J. Chromatogr. A., 659, 337 (1994). T. Suzuki, K. Yaguchi, S. Suzuki, and T. Suga, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 3757 (2001). M. J. M. Wells, General procedures for the development of adsorption trapping methods used in herbicide residue analysis, in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual International Symposium on Sample Preparation and Isolation Using Bonded Silicas, Analytichem International, Harbor City, CA, 1985, pp. 63–68. C. F. Poole and S. K. Poole, Theory meets practice, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 183–226.

references

137

114. J. Patsias and E. Papadopoulou-Mourkidou, J. Chromatogr. A, 904, 171 (2000). 115. H. Yuan and M. J. M. Wells, in preparation. 116. Alltech Associates, product literature, 2002. www.alltechweb.com/productinfo/Technical/datasheets/205000u.pdf 117. M. J. M. Wells, D. M. Ferguson, and J. C. Green, Analyst, 120, 1715 (1995). 118. Varian Sample Preparation Products, Inc., product literature. www.varianinc.com/cgibin/nav?varinc/docs/spp/solphase&cid¼ 975JIKPLPNMQOGJQLMMIP#steps 119. M. J. M. Wells, A. J. Rossano, Jr., and E. C. Roberts, Anal. Chim. Acta, 236, 131 (1990). 120. R. C. Denney, A Dictionary of Chromatography, Wiley, New York, 1976, pp. 60, 71, 72. 121. M. C. Carson, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 343 (2000). 122. J. R. Dean, Solid phase extraction, in Extraction Methods for Environmental Analysis, Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1998, pp. 35–61. 123. C. Yu, M. H. Davey, F. Svec, and J. M. J. Frechet, Anal. Chem., 73, 5088 (2001). 124. I. Ferrer and E. T. Furlong, Anal. Chem., 74, 1275 (2002). 125. C. L. Arthur and J. Pawliszyn, Anal. Chem., 62, 2145 (1990). 126. W. M. Mullett, P. Martin, and J. Pawliszyn, Anal. Chem., 73, 2383 (2001). 127. J. R. Dean, Solid phase microextraction, in Extraction Methods for Environmental Analysis, Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1998, pp. 63–95. 128. J. Pawliszyn, Solid Phase Microextraction: Theory and Practice, Wiley-VCH, New York, 1997, 247 pp. 129. S. A. Scheppers Wercinski and J. Pawliszyn, Solid phase microextraction theory, in S. A. Scheppers Wercinski, ed., Solid Phase Microextraction: A Practical Guide, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 1–26. 130. S. Ulrich, J. Chromatogr. A, 902, 167 (2000). 131. N. H. Snow, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 445 (2000). 132. J. Beltran, F. J. Lopez, and F. Hernandez, J. Chromatogr. A, 885, 389 (2000). 133. G. Theodoridis, E. H. M. Koster, and G. J. de Jong, J. Chromatogr. B, 745, 49 (2000). 134. Z. Penton, Method development with solid phase microextraction, in S. A. Scheppers Wercinski, ed., Solid Phase Microextraction: A Practical Guide, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 27–57. 135. R. E. Shirey, SPME fibers and selection for specific applications, in S. A. Scheppers Wercinski, ed., Solid Phase Microextraction: A Practical Guide, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 59–110. 136. M. de Fatima Alpendurada, J. Chromatogr. A, 889, 3, 2000. 137. Supelco, Inc., product literature, 2002. www.supelco.com

138

principles of extraction

138. Supelco, Inc., How to Choose the Proper SPME Fiber, product literature, T499102, 1999/2000. www.supelco.com 139. R. Eisert and J. Pawliszyn, J. Chromatogr. A, 776, 293 (1997). 140. E. H. M. Koster, C. H. P. Bruins, and G. J. de Jong, Analyst, 127(5), 598 (2002). 141. E. Baltussen, P. Sandra, F. David, and C. Cramers, J. Microcolumn Sep., 11, 737 (1999). 142. B. Tienpont, F. David, C. Bicchi, and P. Sandra, J. Microcolumn Sep., 12, 577 (2000). 143. C. Bicchi, C. Cordero, C. Iori, P. Rubiolo, and P. Sandra, J. High-Resolut. Chromatogr., 23, 539 (2000). 144. C. Bicchi, C. Iori, P. Rubiolo, and P. Sandra, J. Agric. Food Chem., 50, 449 (2002). 145. J. Vercauteren, C. Peres, C. Devos, P. Sandra, F. Vanhaecke, and L. Moens, Anal. Chem., 73, 1509 (2001). 146. A. G. J. Tredoux, H. H. Lauer, T. Heideman, and P. Sandra, J. High-Resolut. Chromatogr., 23, 644 (2000). 147. A. Ho¤mann, R. Bremer, P. Sandra, and F. David, LaborPraxis, 24(2), 60 (2000). 148. P. Popp, C. Bauer, and L. Wennrich, Anal. Chim. Acta, 436(1), 1 (2001). 149. P. Sandra, B. Tienpont, J. Vercammen, A. Tredoux, T. Sandra, and F. David, J. Chromatogr. A, 928(1), 117 (2001). 150. N. Ochiai, K. Sasamoto, M. Takino, S. Yamashita, S. Daishima, A. Heiden, and A. Ho¤mann, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 373(1/2), 56 (2002). 151. T. Benijts, J. Vercammen, R. Dams, H. P. Tuan, W. Lambert, and P. Sandra, J. Chromatography B: Biomedical Sciences and Applications, 755(1/2), 137 (2001). 152. N. Ochiai, K. Sasamoto, M. Takino, S. Yamashita, S. Daishima, A. Heiden, and A. Ho¤mann, Analyst, 126(10), 1652 (2001). 153. N. J. K. Simpson, A comparison between solid-phase extraction and other sample processing techniques, in N. J. K. Simpson, ed., Solid-Phase Extraction: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000, pp. 489–492. 154. J. R. Dean, Comparison of extraction methods, in Extraction Methods for Environmental Analysis, Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1998, pp. 211–216. 155. J. Pawliszyn, Can J. Chem., 79, 1403 (2001). 156. Y. Luo and J. Pawliszyn, Solid phase microextraction (SPME) and membrane extraction with a sorbent interface (MESI) in organic analysis, in A. J. Handley, ed., Extraction Methods in Organic Analysis, She‰eld Academic Press, She‰eld, Yorkshire, England, 1999, pp. 75–99.

CHAPTER 3

EXTRACTION OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM SOLID MATRICES DAWEN KOU AND SOMENATH MITRA Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey

3.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter covers techniques for the extraction of semivolatile organics from solid matrices. The focus is on commonly used and commercially available techniques, which include Soxhlet extraction, automated Soxhlet extraction, ultrasonic extraction, supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), accelerated solvent extraction (ASE), and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE). The underlying principles, instrumentation, operational procedures, and selected applications of these techniques are described. In a given application, probably all the methods mentioned above will work, so it often boils down to identifying the most suitable one. Consequently, an e¤ort is made to compare these methodologies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved several methods for the extraction of pollutants from environmental samples. These standard methods are listed under EPA publication SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods [1]. Many of them were approved only in the last decade. Automated Soxhlet was promulgated in 1994, SFE and ASE in 1996, and MAE in 2000. The Association of O‰cial Analytical Chemists (AOAC) has published its own standard extraction methods for the food, animal feed, drug, and cosmetics industries [2]. Some extraction methods have also been approved by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [3]. Table 3.1 summarizes the standard methods from various sources.

Sample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry, Edited by Somenath Mitra ISBN 0-471-32845-6 Copyright 6 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

139

140

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds Table 3.1. Methods Accepted as Standards for the Extraction of Semivolatile Organics from Solid Matrices

Technique Soxhlet extraction Automated Soxhlet extraction Pressurized fluid extraction (PFE) Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE)

Ultrasonic extraction Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE)

Analytes

Standard Method

Semivolatile and nonvolatile organics Fat in cacao products Semivolatile and nonvolatile organics

EPA 3540C AOAC 963.15 EPA 3541

Semivolatile and nonvolatile organics

EPA 3545A

Semivolatile and nonvolatile organics Total petroleum hydrocarbons, organic compounds Fat in meat and poultry products Semivolatile and nonvolatile organics Semivolatile petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, and organochlorine pesticides

EPA 3546 ASTM D-5765 ASTM D-6010 AOAC 991.36 EPA 3550C EPA 3560 EPA 3561 EPA 3562

3.1.1. Extraction Mechanism Extraction of organics from solids is a process in which solutes desorb from the sample matrix and then dissolve into the solvent. Extraction e‰ciency is influenced by three interrelated factors: solubility, mass transfer, and matrix e¤ects. Much of the discussion in Chapter 2 on solvents and solubility is also relevant to solid matrices. The solubility of an analyte depends largely on the type of the solvent, and for a selected solvent, its solubility is a¤ected by temperature and pressure. Mass transfer refers to analyte transport from the interior of the matrix to the solvent. It involves solvent penetration into the matrix and removal of solutes from the adsorbed sites. Mass transfer is dependent on the di¤usion coe‰cient as well as on the particle size and structure of the matrix. High temperature and pressure, low solvent viscosity, small particle size, and agitation facilitate mass transfer [4]. It is a more important issue than solubility when the analyte concentration in the extraction solvent is below its equilibrium solubility (i.e., when the analyte is readily soluble in the solvent). Matrix e¤ects are the least understood of the three factors. A highly soluble compound can be ‘‘unextractable’’ because it is locked in the matrix pores, or is strongly bound to its surface. For example, analytes in aged soil bind more strongly than in a clean soil when spiked with the same analyte. Desorption is more di‰cult and may take longer. Some extraction techniques, such as SFE, are found to be matrix dependent

introduction

141

[5]. Di¤erent extraction parameters are employed for di¤erent groups of analytes in di¤erent matrices. Solvent selection depends largely on the nature of the analytes and the matrix. Although the discussions in Chapter 2 can be used as a guideline to account for the solvent–analyte interactions, the matrix e¤ects are often unpredictable. There is no single solvent that works universally for all analytes and all matrices. Sometimes, a mixture of water-miscible solvents (such as acetone) with nonmiscible ones (such as hexane or methylene chloride) are used. The water-miscible solvents can penetrate the layer of moisture on the surface of the solid particles, facilitating the extraction of hydrophilic organics. The hydrophobic solvents then extract organic compounds of like polarity. For instance, hexane is e‰cient in the extraction of nonpolar analytes, and methylene chloride extracts the polar ones. As temperature and pressure play important roles in extraction kinetics, extraction techniques can be classified based on these parameters. Classical methods include Soxhlet extraction, automated Soxhlet extraction, and ultrasonic extraction. They are operated under atmospheric pressure, with heating or ultrasonic irradiation. These methods consume relatively large volumes of organic solvents, and the extraction may take a long time. The other group consists of SFE, ASE, and MAE, which are performed under elevated pressure and/or temperature. The extraction is faster, more e‰cient, and sample throughput is high. With relatively less consumption of organic solvents, these methods are more environmentally friendly. Moreover, the costs of solvent purchase and waste disposal are reduced. Despite the high initial equipment cost, these methods may be more economical in the long run, especially for the routine analysis of a large number of samples. 3.1.2. Preextraction Procedures Most extraction methods perform best on dry samples with small particle size. If possible, samples may be air-dried and ground to a fine powder before extraction. However, this procedure is not recommended if the sample contains volatile analytes and/or worker exposure is a concern. Instead, the sample can be dried by mixing with anhydrous sodium sulfate or palletized diatomaceous earth. In certain applications such as in MAE, water can be used as a part of the solvent mixture [6,7]. Instead of drying, water is added into the sample to maintain a certain moisture level. 3.1.3. Postextraction Procedures Some extraction techniques generate large volumes of solvent extract. The extract needs to be concentrated to meet the detection limit of the analytical method. Moreover, in most cases, extracts of soil, sludge, and waste samples

142

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds

require some degree of cleanup prior to analysis. The purpose of cleanup is to remove interfering compounds and high-boiling materials that may cause error in quantification, equipment contamination, and deterioration of chromatographic resolution. The details of postextraction techniques have been discussed in Chapter 1.

3.2. SOXHLET AND AUTOMATED SOXHLET

Soxhlet extraction and automated Soxhlet extraction are described in this section. Soxhlet extraction was named after Baron Von Soxhlet, who introduced this method in the mid-nineteenth century. It had been the most widely used method until modern extraction techniques were developed in the 1980s. Today, Soxhlet is still a benchmark method for the extraction of semivolatile organics from solid samples. Automated Soxhlet extraction (Soxtec being its commercial name) o¤ers a faster alternative to Soxhlet, with comparable extraction e‰ciency and lower solvent consumption. 3.2.1. Soxhlet Extraction A schematic diagram of a typical Soxhlet apparatus is shown in Figure 3.1. The system has three components. The top part is a solvent vapor reflux condenser. In the middle are a thimble holder with a siphon device and a side tube. The thimble holder connects to a round-bottomed flask at the bottom. The sample is loaded into a porous cellulous sample thimble and placed into the thimble holder. Typically, 300 mL of solvent(s) (for a 10-g sample) is added to the flask. A couple of boiling chips are also added, and the flask is gently heated on a heating mantle. Solvent vapor passes through the side tube and goes to the reflux condenser, where it condenses and drips back to the thimble chamber. When the analyte-laden solvent reaches the top of the thimble holder, it is drained back into the bottom flask through the siphon device. This cycle repeats many times for a predetermined time period. Since the extracted analytes have higher boiling points than the extraction solvent, they accumulate in the flask while the solvent recirculates. Consequently, the sample is always extracted with fresh solvents in each cycle. Because the sample is extracted with cooled, condensed solvents, Soxhlet is slow and can take between 6 to 48 hours. The extract volume is relatively large, so a solvent evaporation step is usually needed to concentrate the analytes prior to extract cleanup and analysis. The sample size is usually 10 g or more. Multiple samples can be extracted on separate Soxhlet units, and the extraction can be run unattended. Soxhlet is a rugged, well-established

soxhlet and automated soxhlet

143

Condenser

Siphon Porous Thimble Sample Solvent and Extract Figure 3.1. Schematic diagram of a Soxhlet apparatus. (Reproduced from Ref. 93, with permission from Nelson Thornes Ltd.)

technique that is often used as the benchmark for comparing other methods. Few parameters can a¤ect the extraction. The main drawbacks are the long extraction time and relatively large solvent consumption. The routine use of Soxhelt is decreasing as faster extraction techniques are finding their way into the analytical arena. 3.2.2. Automated Soxhlet Extraction In 1994, automated Soxhlet extraction (Soxtec, commercially) was approved by EPA as a standard method. A shematic diagram of Soxtec is shown in Figure 3.2. The extraction is carried out in three stages: boiling, rinsing, and solvent recovery. In the first stage, a thimble containing the sample is immersed in the boiling solvent for about 60 minutes. Extraction here is faster than Soxhlet, because the contact between the solvent and the sample is more vigorous, and the mass transfer in a high-temperature boiling solvent is more rapid. In the second stage, the sample thimble is lifted above the boiling solvent. The condensed solvent drips into the sample, extracts the organics, and falls back into the solvent reservoir. This rinse–extract process is similar to Soxhlet and is usually set for 60 minutes. The third stage is a concentration step for 10 to 20 minutes. The solvent is evaporated to 1 to

144

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds

Condenser

Thimble Glass Wool Plug Sample Aluminum beaker (cup) Hot plate Figure 3.2. Schematic diagram of an automatic Soxhlet extraction device (Soxtec).

2 mL, as would occur in a Kuderna–Danish concentrator. Since the concentration step is integrated in Soxtec, the extract is ready for cleanup and analysis. Lopez-Avila et al. [8] published a study in 1993 that evaluated the Soxtec extraction of 29 target compounds (seven nitroaromatic compounds, three haloethers, seven chlorinated hydrocarbons, and 12 organochlorine pesticides) from spiked sandy clay loam and clay loam. Among the five factors investigated (matrix type, spike level, anhydrous sodium sulfate addition, total extraction time, and immersion/extraction time ratio), matrix type, spike level, and total extraction time had the most pronounced e¤ects on method performance at the 5% significance level for 16 of the 29 target compounds. The two solvent mixtures, hexane–acetone (1 : 1) and methylene chloride–acetone (1 : 1), performed equally well. Four compounds were not recovered at all, and apparently were lost from the spike matrix. Limited experimental work was performed with 64 base–neutral–acidic compounds spiked onto clay loam, and with three standard reference materials certified

ultrasonic extraction

145

for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). For the 64 compounds spiked onto clay loam at 6 mg/kg, 20 had recoveries more than 75%, 22 between 50 and 74%, 12 between 25 and 49%, and 10 less than 25%. 3.2.3. Comparison between Soxtec and Soxhlet Soxhlet can be applied universally to almost any sample. It is not uncommon to use Soxhlet as the benchmark method for validating other extraction techniques. Soxtec reduces the extraction time to 2 to 3 hours as compared to 6 to 48 hours in Soxhlet. It also decreases solvent use from 250 to 500 mL per extraction to 40 to 50 mL per extraction. Two to six samples can be extracted simultaneously with a single Soxtec apparatus. Recent studies comparing Soxtec with Soxhlet show comparable or even better results for Soxtec. Brown et al. [9] compared the e‰ciency of the standard Soxhlet method against three di¤erent protocols using the Soxtec extractor (Tecator, Inc. Silver Spring, MD). Organic mutagens were extracted from municipal sewage sludge using MeOH and CH2 Cl2 as solvents. Both the Soxtec (with 5 minutes of boiling time and 55 minutes of rinsing time), and Soxhlet procedures yielded reproducible mutagenic responses within the variability of the bioassay. The data indicate that the Soxtec extraction, which was faster and required less solvent, provided adequate extraction of organic mutagens from sewage sludge. Foster and Gonzales [10] reported a collaborative study by 11 laboratories of Soxtec and Soxhlet methods for the determination of total fat in meat and meat products. Each lab analyzed six samples: canned ham, ground beef, frankfurters, fresh pork sausage, hard salami, and beef patties with added soy. In general, results for the Soxtec system showed improved performance. The method was first adopted by AOAC International for the extraction of fat from meat. Membrado et al. [11] tested Soxtec against Soxhlet extraction for the extraction of coal and coal-derived products. Optimization of Soxtec operating conditions reduced the total extraction time to 10% of what was needed by Soxhlet extraction. The recovery and precision by the two methods were comparable.

3.3. ULTRASONIC EXTRACTION

Ultrasonic extraction, also known as sonication, uses ultrasonic vibration to ensure intimate contact between the sample and the solvent. Sonication is relatively fast, but the extraction e‰ciency is not as high as some of the other techniques. Also, it has been reported that ultrasonic irradiation may lead to the decomposition of some organophosphorus compounds [12].

146

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds

Ultrasonic Probe

Solvent Solid Sample

Figure 3.3. Schematic diagram of an ultrasonic extraction device.

Thus, the selected solvent system and the operating conditions must demonstrate adequate performance for the target analytes in reference samples before it is implemented for real samples. This is particularly important for low-concentration [parts per billion (ppb) level] samples. Figure 3.3 shows a schematic diagram of a sonication device. It is a horntype ultrasonic disruptor equipped with a titanium tip. There are two types of disruptors. A 34 -in. horn is typically used for low-concentration samples and a 18 -in. tapered microtip attached to a 12 -in. horn for medium/highconcentration samples. The sample is usually dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate so that it is free flowing. For trace analysis, the sample size is typically 30 g. Then a certain volume (typically, 100 mL) of selected solvents are mixed with the sample. The most common solvent system is acetone–hexane (1 : 1 v/v) or acetone–methylene chloride (1 : 1 v/v). For nonpolar analytes such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexane can also be used. The extraction is performed in the pulsed mode, with ultrasonic energy being on and o¤ rather than continuous. The disruptor horn tip is positioned just below the surface of the solvent, yet above the sample. Very active mixing between the sample and the solvent should be observed. Extraction can be carried out in duration as short as 3 minutes. Since it is a fast procedure, it is important that one strictly follow the specific operating conditions. For low-concentration samples, the sample needs to be extracted two or more times, each time with the same amount of fresh solvents. Then the extracts from the di¤erent extractions are combined. For high-concentration

ultrasonic extraction

147

(over 20 ppm) samples, approximately 2 g of sample is needed, and a single extraction with 10 mL of solvents may be adequate. After extraction, the extract is filtrated or centrifuged, and some form of cleanup is generally needed prior to analysis. 3.3.1. Selected Applications and Comparison with Soxhlet Like Soxhlet, sonication is also recognized as an established conventional method, although it is not as widely used. Limited research has focused on sonication per se or its comparison with Soxhlet. Qu et al. [13] developed a method using sonication with methanol for the extraction of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) in plant tissues (rice stems and leaves). Both e‰ciency and accuracy were found to be high. The mean recovery was 89% (84 to 93% for LAS concentration of 1 to 100 mg/kg), and the relative standard deviation (RSD) was 3% for six replicate analyses. Its advantages over Soxhlet extraction were speed (1 hour), less solvent consumption, and smaller sample requirement (2 to 3 g). Marvin et al. [14] compared sonication with Soxhlet for the extraction of PAHs from sediments, and from an urban dust standard reference material (SRM 1649). The sonication method required less than 5 g of sample. The amount of organic materials extracted by sonication with two solvents was 2.53 G 0.10% of the sediment samples (w/w), while 2.41 G 0.14% was extracted by Soxhlet. Sequential sonicaion with two solvents was much faster (45 minutes) than Soxhlet (2 days), with practically the same extraction e‰ciency. The variation of PAH extracted by sonication from the urban dust SRM was within 15%. Haider and Karlsson [15] developed a simple procedure for the determination of aromatic antioxidants and ultraviolet stabilizers in polyethylene using ultrasonic extraction. Chloroform was used for the isolation of Chimassorb 944 from 150-mm-thick commerical low-density polyethylene and Irganox 1010 and Irgafos 168 from 25-mm medium-density polyethylene film. The recovery of the additives increased remarkably at higher temperatures and longer extraction times. At 60 C, quantitative recovery was achieved in 15, 45, and 60 minutes for Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and Chimassorb 944, respectively. Eiceman et al. [16] reported the ultrasonic extraction of polychlorinated dibenzo- p-dioxins (PCDDs) and other organic compounds from fly ash from municipal waste incinerators. Ten to 20 grams of sample was extracted with 200 mL of benzene for 1 hour. Results from five replicate analyses yielded averages and RSDs (ng/g) for the tetra- to octachlorinated dibenzop-dioxins of 8.6 G 2.2, 15.0 G 4.0, 13.0 G 3.4, 3.2 G 1.0, and 0.4 G 0.1, respectively.

148

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds

Golden and Sawicki [17] studied ultrasonic extraction of almost all of the polar compounds from airborne particulate material collected on Hi-Vol filters. Full recovery of PAH and good reproducibility were achieved. Total analysis time was approximately 1.5 hours. The same research group also reported a sonication procedure for the extraction of total particulate aromatic hydrocarbon (TpAH) from airborne particles collected on glass fiber filters [18]. Significantly higher recovery of TpAH and PAH were achieved by 40 minutes of sonication than by 6 to 8 hours of Soxhlet extraction.

3.4. SUPERCRITICAL FLUID EXTRACTION

Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) utilizes the unique properties of supercritical fluids to facilitate the extraction of organics from solid samples. Analytical scale SFE can be configured to operate on- or o¤-line. In the online configuration, SFE is coupled directly to an analytical instrument, such as a gas chromatograph, SFC, or high-performance liquid chromatograph. This o¤ers the potential for automation, but the extract is limited to analysis by the dedicated instrument. O¤-line SFE, as its name implies, is a stand-alone extraction method independent of the analytical technique to be used. O¤-line SFE is more flexible and easier to perform than the online methods. It allows the analyst to focus on the extraction per se, and the extract is available for analysis by di¤erent methods. This chapter focuses on o¤-line SFE. The discovery of supercritical fluids by Baron Cagniard de la Tour dates back to 1822 [19]. In 1879, Hannay and Hogarth demonstrated the solvating power of supercritical ethanol [20]. Between 1964 and 1976, Zosel filed several patents on deca¤eination of co¤ee, which signified a major development in SFE. In 1978, a deca¤eination plant was opened by the Maxwell House Co¤ee Division. Since then, SFE has found many industrial applications. The use of supercritical fluids for analytical purposes started with capillary supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC), which was introduced by Novotny et al. in 1981 [21]. Analytical scale SFE became commercially available in the mid-1980s. In 1996, EPA approved two SFE methods, one for the extraction of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) and the other for PAHs. Another SFE method was promulgated by EPA in 1998 for the extraction of PCBs and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). 3.4.1. Theoretical Considerations A supercritical fluid is a substance above its critical temperature and pressure. Figure 3.4 shows a phase diagram of a pure substance, where curve

149

pressure

supercritical fluid extraction

L

S

C F

T G

temperature Figure 3.4. Phase diagram of a pure substance. (Reproduced from Ref. 24, with permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers.)

T–C is the interface between gas and liquid. Each point on the line corresponds to a certain temperature and the pressure needed to liquefy the gas at this temperature. Point C is the critical point. Beyond the critical temperature, a gas does not liquefy under increasing pressure. Instead, it is compressed into a supercritical fluid. The critical point is substance-specific. Table 3.2 shows the supercritical conditions of some selected solvents.

Table 3.2. Critical Parameters of Select Substances

Substance CO2 N2 O SF6 NH3 H2 O n-C4 H10 n-C5 H12 Xe CCl2 F2 CHF3

Critical Temperature ( C)

Critical Pressure (atm)

Critical Density (10 3 kg/m 3 )

31.3 36.5 45.5 132.5 374 152 197 16.6 112 25.9

72.9 72.5 37.1 112.5 227 37.5 33.3 58.4 40.7 46.9

0.47 0.45 0.74 0.24 0.34 0.23 0.23 1.10 0.56 0.52

Reproduced from Ref. 24, with permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers.

150

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds Table 3.3. Physical Properties of Gases, Supercritical Fluids, and Liquids

State

Conditionsa

Density (10 3 kg/m 3 )

Gas Supercritical fluid

30 C, 1 atm Near Tc , pc Near Tc , 4 pc 30 C, 1 atm

0.6–2  10 3 0.2–0.5 0.4–0.9 0.6–1.6

Liquid

Viscosity (mPa
s) 1–3  10 2 1–3  10 2 3–9  10 2 0.2–3

Self-Di¤usion Coe‰cient (10 4 m 2 /s) 0.1–0.4 0.7  10 3 0.2  10 3 0.2–2  10

5

Reproduced from Ref. 24, with permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers. a Tc , critical temperature; pc , critical pressure.

Table 3.3 presents the approximate physical properties of gases, supercritical fluids, and liquids. It shows that the densities of supercritical fluids are close to that of a liquid, whereas their viscosities are gaslike. The di¤usion coe‰cients are in between. Due to these unique properties, supercritical fluids have good solvating power (like liquid), high di¤usivity (better than liquid), low viscosity, and minimal surface tension (like gas). With rapid mass transfer in the supercritical phase and with better ability to penetrate the pores in a matrix, extraction is fast in SFE, along with high extraction e‰ciency. The solubility of a supercritical fluid is influenced by its temperature, pressure, and density. Solubility correlates better to density than to pressure. An empirical equation can be used to predict solubility [22]: lnðsÞ ¼ aD þ bT þ c

ð3:1Þ

where s is the solubility in mole or weight percent, D the density in g/mL, T the temperature in kelvin, and a, b, and c are constants. Figure 3.5 depicts the change in analyte solubility in supercritical fluids as a function of temperature and pressure. The predicted solubility using equation (3.1) shows good agreement with the experimental data. Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) has a low supercritical temperature (31 C) and pressure (73 atm). It is nontoxic and nonflammable and is available at high purity. Therefore, CO2 has become the solvent of choice for most SFE applications. Being nonpolar and without permanent dipole moment, supercritical CO2 is a good solvent for the extraction of nonpolar and moderately polar compounds. However, its solvating power for polar solutes is rather poor. Moreover, when the solutes bind strongly to the matrix, the solvent strength of CO2 is often inadequate to break the solute–matrix bond.

supercritical fluid extraction

151

1750 Bars 1500

0.28

1250

Weight % SiO2 in H2O

0.24

1000

0.20 750

0.16 0.12

600 0.08 500 0.04 250 300 360

400

350

400

480 Temperature (°C)

560

Figure 3.5. Solubility of SiO2 in supercritical H2 O. (Reproduced from Ref. 22, with permission from Preston Publications.)

This is true even if it is capable of dissolving the solutes. Supercritical solvents such as N2 O and CHClF2 are more e‰cient in extracting polar compounds, but their routine use is uncommon due to environmental concerns. The extraction e‰ciency of polar compounds by CO2 can be improved by the addition of small quantities (1 to 10%) of polar organic solvents, referred to as modifiers. This is a common practice in SFE. Table 3.4 lists some common modifiers for supercritical CO2 .

Table 3.4. Commonly Used Modifiers for Supercritical CO2 Oxygen containing Nitrogen containing Sulfur containing Hydrocarbons and halogenated organics Acids

Methanol, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, tetrahydrofuran Acetonitrile Carbon disulfide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur hexafluoride Hexane, toluene, methylene chloride, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, trichlorofluoromethane Formic acid

152

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds Pump

Extraction Cell

Oven

Pump Restrictor Supercritical CO2

Modifier

Collector

Figure 3.6. Schematic diagram of an o¤-line SFE system.

3.4.2. Instrumentation The schematic diagram of an SFE system is shown in Figure 3.6. The basic components include a tank of CO2 , a high-pressure pump, an extraction cell, a heating oven, a flow restrictor, and an extract collector. A source of organic modifier and a pump for its delivery may also be needed. Highpurity CO2 is generally supplied in a cylinder with a dip tube (or eductor tube). The function of the dip tube is to allow only liquefied CO2 to be drawn into the pump, as the liquid stays at the bottom of the vertically placed cylinder while the gaseous CO2 is at the top. Aluminum cylinders are generally preferred over steel cylinders. Impurities in CO2 may cause interference during analysis. The extraction cells, frits, restrictors, and multiport valves may also carry-over analytes from high-concentration samples. It has been found that contamination is more likely to be caused by SFE instrumentation and associated plumbing than by the CO2 itself [23]. All connections in the SFE system should be metal to metal, and the use of lubricants should be avoided. The extraction system should also be cleaned after each extraction. The basic requirement for a SFE pump is the ability to deliver constant flow (at least 2 mL/min) in the pressure range 3500 to 1000 psi. Reciprocating and syringe pumps are most common. To maintain CO2 in a liquid state, the pump head is cooled by using a recirculating bath. There are several ways to add a modifier to the CO2 . One is to add it directly to the extraction cell, but the modifier is exhausted with the flow of extraction fluid. Another approach is to add the modifier to the CO2 tank (i.e., it is premixed with CO2 ). However, it has been reported that the ratio of modifier to CO2 in the mixture changes with time [24]. Moreover, the modifier may contaminate

supercritical fluid extraction

153

the CO2 pump. A better alternative is to use a second pump for modifier delivery. The modifier and the CO2 are mixed at a point after the pump but before the extraction cell. This way, the type of the modifier and its concentration can easily be controlled, and the CO2 pump is free of modifier contamination. The extraction cell is usually made of stainless steel, PEEK (polyether ether ketone), or any other suitable material that can withstand high pressure (up to 10,000 psi). It is fitted with fingertight frits, which eliminate use of a wrench and reduces the wear and tear that can result from overtightening. Research indicates that the shape of the cell has little impact on the extraction e‰ciency [24]. Short squat cells are preferred because they are easier to fill than the long thin ones. The extraction cell is placed in an oven that can heat up to 200 C. The pressure of the supercritical fluid is controlled by the restrictor. Restrictors can be broadly classified into two types: fixed and variable. Fixed (diameter) restrictors are typically made of fused silica or metal tubing. They are inexpensive and easy to replace, but are subject to plugging problems. A common cause of plugging is water freezing at the restrictor tip because of the rapid expansion of the released supercritical fluid. Plugging can also happen when the matrix has high concentrations of extractable materials such as elemental sulfur, bulk hydrocarbons, or fats. Variable restrictors have an orifice or nozzle that can be adjusted electronically. They are free from plugging, and a constant flow rate can be maintained. Although variable restrictors are more expensive, they are necessary for real-world applications. The extract is collected by depressurizing the fluid into a sorbent trap or a collection solvent. A trap may retain the analytes selectively, which may then be selectively washed o¤ by a solvent. This can o¤er high selectivity, but requires an additional step. The trap can be cryogenically cooled to avoid the loss of analytes. Using a collection solvent is more straightforward. The choice of solvents often depends on the analytical instrumentation. For example, tetrachloroethene is suitable for infrared determination, while methylene chloride and isooctane are appropriate for gas chromatographic separations. 3.4.3. Operational Procedures The sample is loaded into an extraction cell and placed into the heating oven. The temperature, pressure, flow rate, and the extraction time are set, and the extraction is started. The extract is collected either by a sorbent trap, or by a collection vial containng a solvent. Typical EPA-recommended operating conditions for the extraction of PAHs, pesticides, and PCBs are

154

extraction of semivolatile organic compounds Table 3.5. EPA-Recommended SFE Methods for Environmental Samples Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Volatile PAHs

Less Volatile PAHs

Organochlorine Pesticides

PCBs

Extraction fluid

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Pressure (psi) Density (g/mL) Temperature ( C) Static equilibration time (min) Dynamic extraction time (min) Flow rate (mL/min)

6100 0.785

1750 0.3

CO2 aCH3 OHa H2 O (95 : 1 : 4 v/v/v)a 4900 0.63

4330 0.87

4417 0.75

80

80

120

50

80

0

10

10

20

10

30

10

30

30

40

1.1–1.5

2.0

4.0

1.0

2.5

a For HPLC determination only. CO2 –methanol–dichloromethane (95 : 1 : 4 v/v/v) should be used for GC.

presented in Table 3.5. Supercritical fluid extraction can be operated in two modes: static or dynamic. In static extraction the supercritical fluid is held in an extraction cell for a certain amount of time and then released to a collection device. In dynamic extraction, the supercritical fluid flows continuously through the extraction cell and out into a collection device. 3.4.4. Advantages/Disadvantages and Applications of SFE SFE is fast (10 to 60 minutes) and uses minimum amount of solvents (5 to 10 mL) per sample. CO2 is nontoxic, nonflammable, and environmentally friendly. Selective extraction of di¤erent groups of analytes can be achieved by tuning the strength of the supercritical fluids with di¤erent modifiers and by altering operating conditions. In addition, the extract from SFE does not need additional filtration, as the extraction cell has frits. On the down side, analytical-scale SFE has limited sample size (9). The sensitivity of RNA toward alkaline hydrolysis can be used for selective hydrolysis of RNA in a mixture of RNA and DNA [5]. Isolation of intact RNA is crucial to the success of many applications, such as the measurement of qualitative and quantitative changes in gene expression, preparation of cDNA or cDNA libraries, and in the synthesis of a probe for various molecular hybridization experiments. Several methods exist for RNA isolation and have been described in detail in the literature [6–10]. Details of some of the techniques that can be used in the extraction and isolation of RNA are also discussed in Chapter 8. Some methods that may work for tissues poor in RNases may not yield good quality RNA from tissues that are rich in RNases. Moreover, the success of isolation of a good-quality RNA depends not only on a particular isolation method and reagents, but also on how the tissue is handled (storage condition and the time from dissection) and how rapidly the tissue is homogenized for RNA isolation. Although the biggest source of RNases is the tissue itself, there are additional exogenous sources, such as, hands, skin, hair, contaminated solutions, and laboratory supplies. Certain tissues, such as pancreas and spleen, are particularly abundant in RNases that rapidly degrade RNA. Due to the high activity of RNases and the fact that they are very stable not requiring any cofactors to function, extreme caution needs to be exercised in the extraction procedures to ensure that good-quality RNA is obtained. It is possible to curtail endogenous tissue RNase activity by rapid disruption using a tissue homogenizer in the presence of a strong chaotropic agent (a biologically disruptive agent) such as the guanidinium salts, phenol, and a detergent [e.g., sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)]. Although RNA is stable during the extraction procedure when strong protein denaturing agents are present, it is susceptible to degradation if the RNases get introduced from exogenous sources at a postextraction stage. To eliminate RNases contamination from external sources, the use of sterile

rna isolation: basic considerations

307

disposable plasticware for reagents is preferred. The use of hand gloves and keeping all solutions covered with lids or aluminum foil is a good laboratory practice. If used at all, glassware should be baked at 200 C for 4 to 12 hours. The water used for preparing reagents should be treated with diethylpyrocarbonate (DEPC) to inactivate RNase by stirring with the water to a final concentration of under 0.1%. This should be carried out in a chemical hood for 1 hour, and the treated water should be autoclaved to destroy excess DEPC. For those solutions that cannot be treated with DEPC (Tris bu¤er) or autoclaved (heat-labile biochemicals), DEPC-treated water should be used to make solution from high-quality molecular-biology-grade chemicals that are certified to be RNase-free. Because DEPC is a suspected carcinogen, caution is required in its handling. Many RNase-free reagents, including water, are commercially available. The major steps in RNA isolation include rapid cell or tissue disruption, RNase inactivation by denaturants, which also dissociate RNA and protein complexes, and the recovery of RNA after removal of macromolecules (Figure 7.3). The severity of the treatment of cells for their lysis depends on whether a cell wall is present and its nature. Rapid disruption of tissues and mixing with denaturants is one of the most important steps in RNA isolation as it quickly inactivates RNases. The separation of RNA from proteins is achieved by extraction with a chaotropic agent in the presence of a detergent. This is followed by the separation of RNA either by gradient centrifugation or by partitioning into an aqueous phase where proteins go into the organic phase (phenol/chloroform). RNA from the aqueous phase is precipitated by the addition of alcohol (2.5 volumes of ethanol or equal volume of isopropanol) in the presence of a salt (Table 7.2). Sodium or ammonium acetate salts are preferred over sodium chloride because of the higher solubility of the acetate salts. It is a good practice to reprecipitate RNA with sodium acetate and ethanol if the RNA was precipitated previously in the presence of lithium chloride. Some enzymatic reactions, such as reverse transcriptase, are inhibited by lithium ions. RNA from dilute solutions (